Raya Khoury

A Patient‐Reported Outcome Instrument to Assess Symptom Burden and Predict Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Flipping the Paradigm to Improve Timing of Palliative and End‐of‐Life Discussions and Reduce Unwanted Health Care Costs

BACKGROUND Discussions regarding palliative care and end-of-life care issues are frequently delayed past the time of usefulness, resulting in unwanted medical care. We sought to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument that allows patients to voice their symptom burdens and facilitate timing of discussions. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS A seven-item PRO instrument (Cota Patient Assessed Symptom Score-7 item [CPASS-7]) covering physical performance status, pain, burden, and depression was administered (September 2015 through October 2016) with correlation to overall survival, correcting for time to complete survey since diagnosis. RESULTS A total of 1,191 patients completed CPASS-7 at a median of 560 days following the diagnosis of advanced cancer. Of these patients, 49% were concerned that they could not do the things they wanted; 35% reported decreased performance status. Financial toxicity was reported by 39% of patients, with family burdens noted in 25%. Although depression was reported by 15%, 43% reported lack of pleasure. Pain was reported by 33%. The median CPASS-7 total symptom burden score was 16 (possible 0-112). With a median follow-up of 15 months from initial survey, 46% had died. Patients with symptom burden scores <29 and ≥29 had a 6-month overall survival rate of 87% and 67%, respectively, and 12-month survival rates of 72% and 50%. A one-point score increase resulted in a 1.8% increase in expected hazard. CONCLUSION Patients with advanced cancer with higher levels of symptom burden, as self-reported on the CPASS-7, had inferior survival. The PRO facilitates identification of patients appropriate for reassessment of treatment goals and potentially palliative and end-of-life care in response to symptom burden concerns. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE A seven-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument was administered to 1,191 patients with advanced cancers. Patients self-reporting higher levels of physical and psychological symptom burden had inferior overall survival rates. High individual item symptom PRO responses should serve as a useful trigger to initiate supportive interventions, but when scores indicate global problems, discussions regarding end-of-life care might be appropriate.

The Relationship Between Guideline-Recommended Initiation of Therapy, Outcomes, and Cost for Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Guideline-recommended therapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) encourages evidence-based treatment; however, there is a knowledge gap regarding the influence of guideline-recommended initiation of therapy on outcomes and cost. OBJECTIVE To investigate if lack of guideline-recommended initiation of first-line systemic therapy was associated with worse patient outcomes and increased costs for patients with mNSCLC. METHODS In this retrospective analysis, 1,344 Medicare patients with mNSCLC were identified from Humana data. Performance status (PS) was imputed using procedure, diagnosis, and durable medical equipment codes pre-index. Guideline-recommended initiation of therapy was defined as ≥1 cycle of National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended first-line therapy based on age and PS or targeted therapies regardless of age and PS. Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy. A Cox model assessed factors associated with 6-month mortality. End-of-life quality of care indicators included hospital admission and oncology infusions 30 days preceding death and were evaluated using logistic regression models. A generalized linear model assessed the relationship between guideline-recommended initiation of therapy and total health care costs in the 6 months post-index controlling for clinical, demographic, and treatment characteristics. Logistic models for inpatient stays and emergency department visits were also evaluated. RESULTS Guideline-recommended therapy initiation was observed in 75.5% of patients. Patients not initiating guideline-recommended therapy were older, with a mean (SD) age of 72.5 (6.7) versus 71.2 (6.2) years (P = 0.001), and more frequently identified as having a low-income subsidy (30.0% vs. 16.4%; P < 0.001). Among the 24.6% of patients who died ≤ 6 months post-index, a greater percentage had not initiated guideline-recommended therapy (28.8% vs. 23.2%; P = 0.040). In adjusted models, PS (not initiation of guideline-recommended therapy) was predictive of mortality (patients with poor PS had an 84% higher probability of death [P = 0.014]). Among decedents, 64.2% were hospitalized, and 33.9% had an oncology-related infusion within 30 days of death, with no differences by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy. These end-of-life quality indicators were not associated with guideline-recommended initiation of therapy in adjusted models. Overall, 47.5% of patients who initiated guideline-recommended therapy were hospitalized compared with 55.0% of patients who did not (P = 0.026). Patients initiating guideline-recommended therapy had higher post-index total and oncology-related health care costs and fewer hospitalizations. In models, these differences in costs and hospitalizations were not associated with initiation of guideline-recommended therapy. CONCLUSIONS Most patients initiated guideline-recommended therapy, with no differences in mortality and quality of care at the end of life by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy, though adherence beyond treatment initiation was not assessed. Unadjusted hospitalization rates were lower and costs were higher for patients who initiated guideline-recommended therapy. These differences were no longer observed after risk adjustment, suggesting that they may have been influenced by patient characteristics, disease progression, and subsequent treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES This study was sponsored by Genentech. Khoury, Michael, Parikh, and Bunce are employed by Genentech. Casebeer, Drzayich Antol, DeClue, Hopson, Li, and Stemkowski are employed by Comprehensive Health Insights, Humana, which was contracted by Genentech to conduct this study. Sehman is employed by Humana. Based on this research, 2 posters were presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017 on October 16-19, 2017, in Dallas, Texas. Another poster was also presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Annual European Congress on October 29-November 2, 2016, in Vienna, Austria.

Tools for Communication: Novel Infrastructure to Address Patient-Perceived Gaps in Oncology Care

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers (HCPs) and patient communication are integral to high‐quality oncology care. The patient and HCP perspectives are needed to identify gaps in care and develop communication tools. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand patient‐ and HCP‐perceived elements of and gaps in high‐quality care to develop novel communication tools to improve care. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted among 16 patients with cancer and 10 HCPs in the United States. Trained interviewers elicited patients’ and HCPs’ concerns, views, and perceived needs for communication tools. A thematic analysis was used to identify four quality of care domains, depicted in a conceptual model, and two draft communication tools were developed to address identified gaps. FINDINGS: No patients reported previously using a communication tool, and gaps in communication regarding treatment aims and education were evident. Two tools were developed to assess patients’ life and treatment goals and the importance of ongoing education.