William F Pirl1, Joseph A Greer2, Kelly Irwin2, Inga T Lennes2, Vicki A Jackson2, Elyse R Park2, Daisuke Fujisawa2, Alexi A Wright2, Jennifer S Temel2. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston; Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; and Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan wpirl@partners.org. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston; Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; and Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Administration of chemotherapy close to death is widely recognized as poor-quality care. Prior research has focused on predictors and outcomes of chemotherapy administration at the end of life. This study describes processes of chemotherapy discontinuation and examines their relationships with timing before death, hospice referral, and hospital death. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed health records of a prospective cohort of 151 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who participated in a trial of early palliative care. Chemotherapy treatments during final regimen were qualitatively analyzed to identify categories of discontinuation processes. We then quantitatively compared predictors and outcomes of the process categories. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients died, with 81 and 48 receiving intravenous (IV) and oral chemotherapies as their final regimen, respectively. Five processes were identified for IV chemotherapy: definitive decisions (19.7%), deferred decisions or breaks (22.2%), disruptions for radiation therapy (22.2%), disruptions resulting from hospitalization (27.2%), and no decisions (8.6%). The five processes occurred at significantly different times before death and, except for definitive decisions, ultimate decisions for no further chemotherapy and referral to hospice were often made months later. Among patients receiving oral chemotherapy, 83.3% (40 of 48) were switched from IV to oral delivery as their final regimen, sometimes concurrent with or even after hospice referral. CONCLUSION: Date of last chemotherapy is not a proxy for when a decision to stop treatment is made. Patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer stop their final chemotherapy regimen via different processes, which significantly vary in time before death and subsequent end-of-life care.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Administration of chemotherapy close to death is widely recognized as poor-quality care. Prior research has focused on predictors and outcomes of chemotherapy administration at the end of life. This study describes processes of chemotherapy discontinuation and examines their relationships with timing before death, hospice referral, and hospital death. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed health records of a prospective cohort of 151 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who participated in a trial of early palliative care. Chemotherapy treatments during final regimen were qualitatively analyzed to identify categories of discontinuation processes. We then quantitatively compared predictors and outcomes of the process categories. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients died, with 81 and 48 receiving intravenous (IV) and oral chemotherapies as their final regimen, respectively. Five processes were identified for IV chemotherapy: definitive decisions (19.7%), deferred decisions or breaks (22.2%), disruptions for radiation therapy (22.2%), disruptions resulting from hospitalization (27.2%), and no decisions (8.6%). The five processes occurred at significantly different times before death and, except for definitive decisions, ultimate decisions for no further chemotherapy and referral to hospice were often made months later. Among patients receiving oral chemotherapy, 83.3% (40 of 48) were switched from IV to oral delivery as their final regimen, sometimes concurrent with or even after hospice referral. CONCLUSION: Date of last chemotherapy is not a proxy for when a decision to stop treatment is made. Patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer stop their final chemotherapy regimen via different processes, which significantly vary in time before death and subsequent end-of-life care.
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Gary H Lyman; Douglas W Blayney; J Russell Hoverman; Derek Raghavan; Dana S Wollins; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan Miesfeldt; Kimberly Murray; Lee Lucas; Chiang-Hua Chang; David Goodman; Nancy E Morden Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Lara Traeger; Chelsea Rapoport; Emily Wright; Areej El-Jawahri; Joseph A Greer; Elyse R Park; Vicki A Jackson; Jennifer S Temel Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Garrett T Wasp; Kristin E Knutzen; Genevra F Murray; Olivia C Brody-Bizar; Matthew A Liu; Kathryn I Pollak; James A Tulsky; Yael Schenker; Amber E Barnato Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-12-02
Authors: Areej El-Jawahri; Kelsey Lau-Min; Ryan D Nipp; Joseph A Greer; Lara N Traeger; Samantha M Moran; Sara M D'Arpino; Ephraim P Hochberg; Vicki A Jackson; Barbara J Cashavelly; Holly S Martinson; David P Ryan; Jennifer S Temel Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Vincent Mor; Todd H Wagner; Cari Levy; Mary Ersek; Susan C Miller; Risha Gidwani-Marszowski; Nina Joyce; Katherine Faricy-Anderson; Emily A Corneau; Karl Lorenz; Bruce Kinosian; Scott Shreve Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Lucy E Ziegler; Cheryl L Craigs; Robert M West; Paul Carder; Adam Hurlow; Pablo Millares-Martin; Geoff Hall; Michael I Bennett Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katsiaryna Laryionava; Katja Mehlis; Elena Bierwirth; Friederike Mumm; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Pia Heußner; Eva C Winkler Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-06-15