bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Patient communication prior to initial consultation for palliative radiotherapy.
Authors: Paulsson Anna , Braunstein Steve E. 
Published: February 2017

30 Background: For patients undergoing radiation treatment for advanced cancer, coordination between multiple care teams is required. The radiation therapy care pathway is complex, with numerous components, including consultation, planning, treatment delivery, and follow up care. Fragmented care can result from suboptimal communication among referring providers and patients. Prior to initial consult with a radiation oncologist, many patients are unaware of the complex logistics, resulting in additional distress. We conducted a survey to determine how to improve communication to better prepare patients for radiation therapy. Methods: In a pilot project to address communication barriers for patients receiving radiotherapy, a brief 10-question multiple choice survey was developed to gather patient-reported data at the time of initial consultation for palliative or primary CNS radiation treatment. The survey addressed patient understanding of the indication, logistics, and expected outcomes and toxicity of radiotherapy. Results: Our preliminary data is gathered from 16 patients who filled out a survey at the time of consult. Of this group, 10 patients received palliative radiotherapy for advanced malignant disease. Ninety percent of patients were able to correctly identify the role of the radiation oncologist in cancer care. Only 30% demonstrated understanding of the logistics of radiotherapy, including details of planning and multisession treatment delivery. Several patients noted concerns about the logistics and expected efficacy of treatment. No patients were previously informed of the indication of radiotherapy for pain palliation. Conclusions: Initial survey results suggest that advanced cancer patients are often mis- or under-informed about their disease status and the indication of radiotherapy in treatment and palliation of symptoms. Improved communication with patients referred for radiation therapy consultation may alleviate their concerns and enable them to set appropriate expectations for subsequent radiotherapy, minimizing distress. Ongoing survey results will be utilized to identify opportunities to educate providers towards better patient communication.
Poor prognostic indicators for patients treated with radiosurgery for brain metastases.
Authors: Garcia Michael A , Anderson Wendy , Fogh Shannon E. , Nakamura Jean L. , Theodosopoulos Philip , McDermott Michael , Sneed Patricia Penny , Braunstein Steve E. 
Published: February 2017

32 Background: Radiosurgery (SRS) is a standard palliative treatment for patients with limited number of brain metastases. Growing evidence supports the use of SRS for more extensive disease. As SRS is increasingly used in advanced cancer, we sought to identify predictors of survival after SRS to help better inform patients about prognosis. Methods: We reviewed patients treated with SRS for brain metastases at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) from Jan 2010-Dec 2013. Before SRS, all patients were screened for appropriateness of SRS at a multidisciplinary conference. Post-SRS overall survival (OS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank tests. Frequencies of death within 30 days of SRS were compared by chi-squared tests. Results: Demographic and imaging data was available for 326 SRS patients. At SRS consult, 90% patients were Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) ≥ 70. Median number of brain metastases at consult was 2 (range 1-37). Median follow up was 13 months. Median OS after SRS was 11 months. Median OS was shorter for patients with KPS < 70 (4 months) compared to those with KPS ≥ 70 (12 months) (p < 0.001). Overall, frequency of death within 30 days of SRS was 5.4%. Within 30 days of SRS, 13% of patients with KPS < 70 died compared to 3.8% with KPS ≥ 70 (p = 0.03). Death within 30 days of SRS was more common among patients with uncontrolled (10%) versus controlled primary tumors (3%) (p = 0.02). Both uncontrolled primary tumor and KPS < 70% were associated with death within 30 days of SRS on multivariate analysis (p = 0.02 and p = 0.03, respectively). Patients with both KPS < 70 and uncontrolled primary tumors had frequency of death within 30 days of 29%. Factors not associated with death within 30 days were age, extracranial metastatic disease burden, histology, number of brain metastases, prior whole brain radiotherapy, SRS, or neurosurgery. Conclusions: Death within 30 days of SRS within the UCSF cohort is uncommon, likely due to multidisciplinary screening for patients expected to live long enough to benefit from SRS. Most patients who die within 30 days of SRS have both KPS < 70 and uncontrolled primary tumors. The potential for poor prognosis should be discussed with these patients during shared-decision making.
Who chooses palliative chemotherapy when a cure is possible? Results of a risk tolerance survey of laypersons.
Authors: LeBlanc Thomas William , Scherr Karen , Wang Annabel , Lemmon Monica , Ubel Peter A. 
Published: February 2017

35 Background: Many patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) face a difficult choice about whether to receive palliative chemotherapy or high-dose, potentially-curative chemotherapy that poses a risk of early death. How people weigh these factors in decision-making is unknown. We hypothesized that the possibility of cure primarily drives decision-making, regardless of treatment risk. Methods: We designed an electronic survey describing two treatment paths: (1) high-dose chemotherapy with possibility of cure but a 10% risk of early death, and (2) palliative chemotherapy with no chance of cure but no risk of early death. We recruited respondents via Amazon MTurk and presented 7 scenarios in random order, varying only the likelihood of cure associated with high-dose chemotherapy. Subjects rated their preferred treatment on a 4-point Likert scale. We assessed numeracy and attitudes toward chemotherapy using validated scales, and employed attention checks for quality assurance. Results: 100 subjects completed the survey (median age 30.5; 52 female, 85 Caucasian). 46 (46%) had at least a bachelor’s degree, and numeracy was generally high (median 4.75 out of 6). Respondents’ preferences for intensive chemotherapy varied with likelihood of cure, however some displayed a fixed preference for either curative or palliative treatment throughout, regardless of benefit level. For example, given a 50% likelihood of cure 20 respondents (20%) still preferred palliative therapy; similarly, with only a 1% likelihood of cure 28 respondents (28%) still preferred high-dose chemotherapy. In a multivariable model, preference for palliative chemotherapy was significantly predicted by subjects’ scores on the attitudes toward chemotherapy scale (p < 0.001), controlling for age, education and numeracy. Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, a significant proportion of subjects preferred palliative chemotherapy, even in scenarios where high-dose chemotherapy conferred a high likelihood of cure. Pre-existing attitudes toward chemotherapy appear to drive patients’ decision-making about even potentially curative treatments. This finding may have significant implications for risk communication in oncology.
Frequency and factors associated patients decisional control preferences (DCP) in patients with advanced cancer (ACP).
Authors: Yennu Sriram , Rodrigues Luis Fernando , Shamieh Omar M. , Tricou Columbe , Filbet Marilène , Naing Kyaw , Ramaswamy Akhileswaran , Bautista Mary Joycylyn S. , Perez-Cruz Pedro Emilio , Muckaden Mary Ann , Bunge Sofia , Fakrooden Sarah , Sewram Vikash , Noguera Tejedor Antonio , Park Minjeong , Liu Diane D , Reddy Suresh K. , Bruera Eduardo 
Published: February 2017

37 Background: To determine the frequency and socio-demographic and clinical factors associated passive DCP among ACP across the world. Methods: We conducted a survey of ACP referred to palliative care across 11 countries across the five continents across the world. Information was collected on socio-demographic variables, and using validated measures including Karnofsky Performance Scale, Decision Control Preference Scale, and Satisfaction with the Decisions and Care questionnaire. We analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: Median age was 58 years, karnofsky 70, and 55% were female. Shared, Active and Passive DCP were 33.2%, 44.1% and 22.6% respectively (n = 1490). 91% were satisfied by the way the actual decisions were made. Concordance between the actual decision making and DCP was highest in cohort from USA [k = 0.74 (0.65-0.82) and lowest in Brazil 0.33 (0.22-0.44)]. “Satisfaction with the way the decisions about their care was made” was 91%. Better Karnosfsky performance status (OR 0.99, P = 0.017), higher education status (OR 0.64, P = 0.001) Country of origin (Brazil, France, Singapore, South Africa, Jordan were significantly associated with passive decision making preference (Table 1). Conclusions: DCP is based ACP’s performance status, education and is culture specific. Individualized understanding DCP may be important for quality care and patient satisfaction outcomes. [Table: see text]
Development of a decision support aid to support goals of care conversation for hospitalized patients with cancer.
Authors: George Marina Ciny , Stone Lisa E , Stepan Karen , Gallagher Colleen M. , Moore Jessica Anne , Gaeta Susan , Meyer Margaret W. , Volk Robert Joseph , Zhukovsky Donna S. 
Published: February 2017

42 Background: Goals of care (GOC) conversations between oncologists and patients are often ill-defined due to poor physician and patient preparation and unclear goals. Hospitalization may further increase patients’ fear and confusion about GOC. Creating a tool to facilitate shared decision making is critical to support patients and their health care team in this process. In this study, we have collected data as the initial step in the development of a decision aid (DA) for GOC conversations with hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Methods: A group of 14 content experts including diverse health professionals, patients and caregivers responded to a needs assessment to determine key questions to elicit involved stakeholders’ perceptions on relevant content for the DA. Questions were used to conduct semi-structured interviews with patients, a clinician focus group and a patient and caregiver focus group. All responses were audio-recorded and transcribed. Results: There were 30 participants: 10 patient interviews and 10 participants in each focus group. Patients generally wanted as much information as possible about prognosis and choices, but acknowledged they were often overwhelmed and frustrated at not receiving information sooner. Most were clear about who they would include in their GOC discussions. Clinicians’ concerns included not destroying patients’ hope and uncertainty about how to achieve the delicate balance of delivering bad news while preserving hope. Clinicians also felt challenged by the time needed to conduct GOC conversations and how to initiate them. Patient and caregivers emphasized the value of a multimodal approach to GOC conversations. Individually, they varied in their readiness for and the ideal timing of GOC conversations, noting these could be early or late in their illness trajectory. Conclusions: We see a need for personalization in a decision support aid to have clear goals of care. Patients differ in readiness to activate different parts of the decisional tree at different times. This will be used to guide design of a decision support aid to support hospitalized patients with advanced cancer to have a meaningful goals of care conversation with their clinicians.
Can we improve the quality of documented end-of-life conversations using a structured, multicomponent intervention?
Authors: Paladino Joanna , Lakin Joshua , Miranda Stephen , Gass Jonathon , Bernacki Rachelle , Koritsanszsky Luca , Kavanagh Jane , Palmor Marissa , Hirschhorn Lisa , Lamas Daniela , Sanders Justin , Neville Bridget , Lipsitz Stu , Block Susan 
Published: February 2017

49 Background: Conversations about serious illness care goals are often inadequate and fail to address key elements of high-quality discussions. Methods: As part of a cluster-randomized trial of a multi-component communication intervention, we conducted a retrospective chart review of 147 deceased oncology patients to assess frequency and timing of documentation of end-of-life (EOL) conversations; charts of a subset of 20 intervention and 20 matched control patients underwent detailed review to assess quality. A systematically developed abstraction tool was used by two blinded researchers. The tool contained 25 elements reflecting four EOL conversation domains: goals/values, illness understanding/prognosis, EOL care planning, life-sustaining treatments. Results: Of 153 intervention patients, 44.4% died (n = 68); of 161 controls, 49.1% died (n = 79). Significantly more intervention patients than controls (92.7% vs 74.7%, p = 0.006) had at least 1 documented EOL discussion before death; intervention conversations occurred 3 months earlier (median 147 days vs 62 days, p = 0.003). 59.4% of intervention conversations were documented in a retrievable EHR location compared to 10.2% of controls (p = 0.001). In the detailed review, 85% (n = 17) of intervention and 40% (n = 8) of controls had at least 1 documented discussion about values/goals (p = 0.0001), with an average of 3.6 of 8 elements (0.7 of 8 for controls) (p = 0.0003). 85% percent (n = 17) of intervention and 30% (n = 6) of controls had at least 1 documented discussion about prognosis (p = 0.0014), with an average of 2.5 of 7 elements (0.5 of 7 for controls) (p = 0.001). 85% of intervention (n = 17) and 55% of controls (n = 11) had at least 1 documented discussion about EOL planning (p = 0.009). 55% of intervention and 30% of controls had at least 1 documented discussion about life-sustaining treatments (p = 0.20). Conclusions: The intervention resulted in more, earlier and better documentation of serious illness care goals. Across 3 of 4 domains of quality, intervention patients had more detailed information about their EOL care preferences, demonstrating that the intervention results in more patient-centered, comprehensive discussions. Clinical trial information: NCT01786811.
Effect of a communication skills intervention on resident comfort and knowledge of discussing goals of care and advance care planning.
Authors: Patel Rushil Virendra , Golding Elizabeth , Lampkin Aaron , Larach Mary Walker , Klima Lawrence 
Published: February 2017

50 Background: Inpatient providers are sometimes challenged with advanced care planning for their patients. At a teaching hospital, resident physicians find themselves tasked with this responsibility for inpatients they may have only just met, as well as in their assigned outpatient panel. Education on communication skills though has been shown to improve resident comfort level and knowledge of discussing goals of care and advance care planning. Methods: Internal medicine categorical residents (n = 15) and preliminary (n = 3) residents at a university-affiliated, community hospital learned the fundamentals of discussing goals of care and advance care planning using selected modules from the Center for Advancing Palliative Care’s (CAPC) online curriculum in communication skills during their outpatient clinic rotation from February through June 2016. Residents then discussed a patient encounter from their experience with their colleagues along with a member from the inpatient palliative care team and a clinical psychologist in weekly 1-hour afternoon sessions. A pre- and post-intervention survey was administered and recoded by a numerical identifier to assess the change in each resident's comfort level and knowledge level with conducting these discussions with their patients. Sessions were also audiorecorded to identify recurrent themes and insights for future follow-up projects. Results: Preliminary analysis (n = 11) demonstrates a statistically significant improvement in the median difference between overall resident comfort level (p = 0.007) and knowledge (p = 0.027) of discussing goals of care and advance care planning. Several participants also expressed desires for additional opportunities to practice these skills under supervision by experienced providers. Conclusions: Residents value developing skills requisite to facilitate goals of care discussions and advance care planning. Further opportunities for practice and feedback should be identified.
Advance care planning preferences in Hispanic population with cancer in the Bronx.
Authors: Cardenas Mori Jhosselini 
Published: February 2017

6 Background: We aim to explore medical information-sharing and decision-making preferences of Hispanic patients in the Bronx. Methods: We are recruiting cancer patients who self-identify as Hispanic and are waiting at the oncology clinic at Montefiore Medical Center Cancer Center before an appointment. Results: To date we have interviewed 110 patients. The majority (60, 52.6%) preferred shared decision-making with their doctors, families or both, while 45 (39.5%) had an active decision-making style. A minority (9, 7.9%) had a passive decision-making style, deferring to their families and only 1 (0.9%) had a passive decision-making style deferring to the physician. The only demographic characteristic that was associated with decision-making preference was language; those who are English-speaking were more likely to endorse an active decision-making style (Chi2 = 7.06, p = 0.029) and less likely to endorse shared decision-making (Chi2 = 6.33, p = 0.042). The majority of patients agreed or strongly agreed that they wanted to hear all of the information regarding their diagnosis, treatment options, treatment expectation and treatment risks and benefits. Conclusions: These results confirm our hypothesis that most Hispanic patients prefer either an active or shared decision-making process rather than a passive decision-making process. Most patients prefer disclosure of diagnosis, prognosis and plan.
Short-course radiation for palliation of squamous cell carcinoma of an unknown primary of the head and neck.
Authors: Rich Shayna Eliana , Mendenhall William M. 
Published: February 2017

62 Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the treatment patterns used for palliative radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of an unknown primary of the head and neck and to compare the acute toxicity and tumor response for these patients for the most common dose-fractionation regimens. Methods: Patients with biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of an unknown primary with cervical lymphadenopathy were included who were treated with radiation therapy with palliative intent at a single institution between 1966 and 2015 (N = 45). Chart abstraction was performed on the radiation therapy records and follow-up visit notes. Results: Most patients presented with N3 disease (32/45, 71%), with symptoms of pain (19/45, 42%), or with difficulty swallowing (12/45, 27%). Patients were most commonly treated with 20 Gy in 2 fractions (13/45, 29%) or 30 Gy in 10 fractions (13/45, 29%). Toxicity was mild regardless of dose-fractionation, with only 6 patients experiencing dysphagia and 1 having a pulmonary embolus. Most patients had a partial nodal response during the radiation course (25/45, 56%), and partial symptom response by the first followup (17/33, 52%). Results were similar for 20 Gy and 30 Gy courses. Median survival was approximately 5 months and did not differ by radiation course. Conclusions: Patients treated with dose-fractionations of 20 Gy in 2 weekly treatments or 30 Gy in 10 fractions had minimal toxicity. Most patients had an excellent response in nodal size during radiation and nearly all had symptomatic response within the first month of follow. Patients with advanced disease of the head and neck may have a surprising durability of response with even a short course of palliative radiation therapy.
Caregivers' accuracy in reporting patients' symptom: A preliminary report.
Authors: Langer Paola , Perez-Cruz Pedro Emilio , Carrasco Escarate Cecilia , Bonati Pilar , Batic Bogomila , Tupper Laura , Gonzalez Otaiza Marcela 
Published: February 2017

64 Background: Improving symptom control during end of life (EOL) is a core goal of palliative care. When patients are not able to report their symptoms, caregivers (CG) report symptom intensity as surrogates. Data show that there is good agreement between patients and CG in reporting symptom intensity. However, little is known about factores that influence CGs’ accuracy. The aim of the study was to determine CG accuracy of advanced cancer patients’ symptoms and to identify CG factors that could modify it. Methods: In this prospective study, patients with advanced cancer enrolled in the National Program of Palliative Care at a public Hospital in Santiago, Chile and their CGs independently scored ten patients’ symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Correlation between patient and CG scores were estimated for each symptom. Differences between patient and CG scores were calculated for each symptom and were transformed into positive values. A continuous variable was created with the sum of all the differences as an indicator of caregiver overall accuracy, with smaller scores meaning better accuracy. CG depression, anxiety (HADS) and burden (ZARIT) were also assessed. Results: 36 patients and their CG were included in this preliminary analysis. Mean patient age was 64, 20 (56%) females, 13 (36%) had GI cancer, 7 (19%) lung cancer and 16 (45%) other. Mean caregiver age was 53, 25 (69%) female. We found positive correlations between patients’ and caregivers’ assessment of pain, fatigue, nausea, anorexia, dyspnea, depression and insomnia (r > 0.3 and p < .05 for each symptom). CG accuracy ranged between 10 and 44 points (mean 25, standard deviation 9) and was not associated with CG age, gender, depression, anxiety or burden. CG accuracy was negatively associated with CG worrying thoughts as assessed by one of the HADS questions (Coef -3.99, p = .015), meaning that CG were more accurate when their worrying thoughts were higher. This association remained significant when adjusted by CG depression, anxiety and burden. Conclusions: CG are more accurate in reporting patient symptoms when their levels of worrying thoughts are higher. This information may have implications in interpreting CG report during EOL.