Rachel F Shenker1, Mary Elizabeth McLaughlin2, Fumiko Chino3, Junzo Chino4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, 20 Duke Medicine Cir, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. Rachel.shenker@duke.edu. 2. Department of Interventional Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, 20 Duke Medicine Cir, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors often require intensive end-of-life care, for which place of death may serve as a quality metric. Death at home or hospice is considered a more "ideal" location. Comprehensive information on place of death of people with brain tumors is lacking. METHODS: Using CDC Wonder Database data, those who died in the USA from a solid cancer from 2003 to 2016 were included and place of death for those with primary brain, brain metastases, and solid non-brain tumors were compared. Multivariate logistic regression tested for disparities in place of death. RESULTS: By 2016, 51.1% of patients with primary brain tumors and 45.2% with brain metastases died at home. 15.9% of patients with primary brain tumors and 23.6% with brain metastases died in the hospital. Black patients were least likely to die at home or hospice. For patients with primary brain tumors, being married (OR = 2.25 (95%CI 2.16-2.34), p < 0.01) and having an advanced degree (OR = 1.204 (95%CI 1.15-1.26), p < 0.01) increased odds of home/hospice death; older age (OR = 0.50 (95%CI 0.46-0.54), p < 0.01) decreased odds for home/hospice death. For patients with brain metastases, being married (OR = 2.19 (95%CI 2.11-2.26), p < 0.01) increased odds of home/hospice death and male sex (OR = 0.87 (095%CI .85-0.89), p < 0.01) and older age (OR = 0.59 (95%CI 0.47-0.75), p < 0.01) decreased odds of home/hospice death. CONCLUSION: Disparities exist in place of death in the brain tumor population. Focused interventions are indicated to increase the utilization of hospice in those with metastatic cancer, under-represented minority groups, and the elderly population.
PURPOSE: Patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors often require intensive end-of-life care, for which place of death may serve as a quality metric. Death at home or hospice is considered a more "ideal" location. Comprehensive information on place of death of people with brain tumors is lacking. METHODS: Using CDC Wonder Database data, those who died in the USA from a solid cancer from 2003 to 2016 were included and place of death for those with primary brain, brain metastases, and solid non-brain tumors were compared. Multivariate logistic regression tested for disparities in place of death. RESULTS: By 2016, 51.1% of patients with primary brain tumors and 45.2% with brain metastases died at home. 15.9% of patients with primary brain tumors and 23.6% with brain metastases died in the hospital. Black patients were least likely to die at home or hospice. For patients with primary brain tumors, being married (OR = 2.25 (95%CI 2.16-2.34), p < 0.01) and having an advanced degree (OR = 1.204 (95%CI 1.15-1.26), p < 0.01) increased odds of home/hospice death; older age (OR = 0.50 (95%CI 0.46-0.54), p < 0.01) decreased odds for home/hospice death. For patients with brain metastases, being married (OR = 2.19 (95%CI 2.11-2.26), p < 0.01) increased odds of home/hospice death and male sex (OR = 0.87 (095%CI .85-0.89), p < 0.01) and older age (OR = 0.59 (95%CI 0.47-0.75), p < 0.01) decreased odds of home/hospice death. CONCLUSION: Disparities exist in place of death in the brain tumor population. Focused interventions are indicated to increase the utilization of hospice in those with metastatic cancer, under-represented minority groups, and the elderly population.
Authors: B Gomes; I J Higginson; N Calanzani; J Cohen; L Deliens; B A Daveson; D Bechinger-English; C Bausewein; P L Ferreira; F Toscani; A Meñaca; M Gysels; L Ceulemans; S T Simon; H R W Pasman; G Albers; S Hall; F E M Murtagh; D F Haugen; J Downing; J Koffman; F Pettenati; S Finetti; B Antunes; R Harding Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer; Alona Muzikansky; Emily R Gallagher; Sonal Admane; Vicki A Jackson; Constance M Dahlin; Craig D Blinderman; Juliet Jacobsen; William F Pirl; J Andrew Billings; Thomas J Lynch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Justin E Bekelman; Scott D Halpern; Carl Rudolf Blankart; Julie P Bynum; Joachim Cohen; Robert Fowler; Stein Kaasa; Lukas Kwietniewski; Hans Olav Melberg; Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Mariska Oosterveld-Vlug; Andrew Pring; Jonas Schreyögg; Connie M Ulrich; Julia Verne; Hannah Wunsch; Ezekiel J Emanuel Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Baohui Zhang; Alaka Ray; Jennifer W Mack; Elizabeth Trice; Tracy Balboni; Susan L Mitchell; Vicki A Jackson; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Fumiko Chino; Arif H Kamal; Thomas W Leblanc; S Yousuf Zafar; Gita Suneja; Junzo P Chino Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 6.860