Keiko Kurita1,2, M Cary Reid2, Eugenia L Siegler2, Eli L Diamond3, Holly G Prigerson1,2. 1. 1 Center for Research on End-of-Life Care , Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 2. 2 Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine , New York, New York. 3. 3 Department of Neurology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive function of patients with advanced cancer is frequently compromised. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent that patients' cognitive screening scores was associated with their end-of-life (EoL) treatment preferences, advance care planning (ACP), and care. DESIGN: Patients were interviewed at baseline and administered a cognitive screen. Caregivers completed a postmortem assessment. SETTING/ SUBJECTS: Patients with distant metastases and disease progression after first-line chemotherapy and their caregivers (n = 609) were recruited from outpatient clinics and completed baseline and postmortem assessments. MEASUREMENTS: In logistic regression models adjusting for patients' age, education level, and performance status, patients' scores on the Pfeiffer Short Portable Mental Status exam at baseline predicted ACP, treatments, and treatment preferences at baseline, and location of death and caregiver perceptions of the patients' death in a postmortem assessment. RESULTS: For each additional error, patients were less likely to consider the intensive care unit a bad place to die (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.81; confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.66-0.98; p = 0.03) and less likely to have an inpatient hospice stay (AOR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.40-1.00; p = 0.05). After death (n = 318), caregivers were more likely to perceive that patients died at patients' preferred location (AOR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.88; p = 0.04) and less likely to perceive that patients preferred to extend life over relieving discomfort (AOR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patient cognitive screening scores were associated with EoL outcomes. Rather than avoid patients who are cognitively impaired, oncologists should consider ACP with them.
BACKGROUND: Cognitive function of patients with advanced cancer is frequently compromised. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent that patients' cognitive screening scores was associated with their end-of-life (EoL) treatment preferences, advance care planning (ACP), and care. DESIGN:Patients were interviewed at baseline and administered a cognitive screen. Caregivers completed a postmortem assessment. SETTING/ SUBJECTS:Patients with distant metastases and disease progression after first-line chemotherapy and their caregivers (n = 609) were recruited from outpatient clinics and completed baseline and postmortem assessments. MEASUREMENTS: In logistic regression models adjusting for patients' age, education level, and performance status, patients' scores on the Pfeiffer Short Portable Mental Status exam at baseline predicted ACP, treatments, and treatment preferences at baseline, and location of death and caregiver perceptions of the patients' death in a postmortem assessment. RESULTS: For each additional error, patients were less likely to consider the intensive care unit a bad place to die (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.81; confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.66-0.98; p = 0.03) and less likely to have an inpatient hospice stay (AOR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.40-1.00; p = 0.05). After death (n = 318), caregivers were more likely to perceive that patients died at patients' preferred location (AOR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.88; p = 0.04) and less likely to perceive that patients preferred to extend life over relieving discomfort (AOR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Patient cognitive screening scores were associated with EoL outcomes. Rather than avoid patients who are cognitively impaired, oncologists should consider ACP with them.
Entities:
Keywords:
cognitive dysfunction; end-of-life outcomes; patients with advanced cancer
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; J Randall Curtis; Vicki A Freedman; Judith D Kasper; Pedro Gozalo; Ruth A Engelberg; Joan M Teno Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Siran M Koroukian; Nicholas K Schiltz; David F Warner; Charles W Given; Mark Schluchter; Cynthia Owusu; Nathan A Berger Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: O C Okonkwo; H R Griffith; J N Copeland; K Belue; S Lanza; E Y Zamrini; L E Harrell; J C Brockington; D Clark; R Raman; D C Marson Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-11-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Marieke H J van den Beuken-van Everdingen; Laura M J Hochstenbach; Elbert A J Joosten; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Daisy J A Janssen Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Ugur Sener; Elizabeth C Neil; Amy Scharf; Alan C Carver; Justin B Buthorn; Dana Bossert; Allison M Sigler; Louis P Voigt; Eli L Diamond Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2021-06-19
Authors: Keiko Kurita; Mark S Lachs; Ronald D Adelman; Eugenia L Siegler; M Cary Reid; Holly G Prigerson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 3.240