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.

Treatment of Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma in Community Settings.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) represent a rare and heterogeneous group of malignancies that do not have consensus treatment recommendations. Strategies extrapolated from B-cell lymphoma have met with limited efficacy, although T-cell-specific salvage therapies have been recently developed. METHODS: To determine treatment patterns and associated outcomes in PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma (ALCL), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), a retrospective analysis was undertaken at a large US community oncology network among patients treated between January 2010 and April 2015. RESULTS: Among 93 patients (44 PTCL-NOS, 30 ALCL, 19 AITL), 23 unique treatments were used in 66 first-line patients and 12 unique second-line treatments were used in 24 relapsed/refractory patients. First-line CHOP and CHOP-like regimens were used in 74% of patients, providing 4-year overall survival (OS) outcomes of 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14%-83%) in patients without transplant consolidation (82% in ALCL, 37% in PTCL-NOS, and 0% in AITL). Upfront stem cell transplantation trended toward improved 4-year progression-free survival 77% (95% CI, 54%-100%) versus 34% (95% CI, 14%-80%); (P = .08; hazard ratio [HR] 0.29) with 4-year OS 77% (95% CI, 54%-100%) versus 34% (P = .22; HR 0.41). Brentuximab was the most common second-line therapy, with multiple additional regimens used in sequence (up to 5 salvage regimens) in many. CONCLUSIONS: The significant variability in treatments used for PTCL emphasizes the lack of consensus therapy in this rarer lymphoma and calls for additional organized prospective and registry studies to evaluate comparative effectiveness.

A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument to Facilitate Timing of End-of-Life Discussions among Patients with Advanced Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Honoring the wishes of cancer patients is a responsibility of oncologists; however, end-of-life care (EOLC) discussions are frequently delayed past the point of usefulness. OBJECTIVE: To develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) screening tool that facilitates timing of EOLC discussions. DESIGN: A seven-item PRO instrument covering four clinical and personhood domains [performance status, pain, burden (financial and family), and depression] was administered to patients with advanced malignancies undergoing noncurative therapy. The PRO instrument included the patient's assessment of the importance of each domain. Results were correlated with the oncologist's assessment of appropriateness of continuing aggressive therapy. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Four hundred thirty-three patients fully completed the PRO instrument between February and March 2015 at a single outpatient cancer center. RESULTS: There was a difference (p < 0.0001) in median scores among cohorts deemed by their oncologists appropriate to continue noncurative treatments versus patients whose physicians were contemplating or actively engaged in EOLC discussions. The scores for the four individual domains also differed among cohorts. An upper threshold score comprising 46% of patients deemed appropriate to curtail treatment (but inclusive of only 26% of patients deemed appropriate to continue) was determined, facilitating identification of patients for EOLC discussions. CONCLUSIONS: A seven-item patient-centric PRO instrument was able to separate advanced malignancy patients into cohorts who their physicians deemed were at differing stages in their cancer journey with increasing needs for advance care planning. A study to determine if the threshold scores identified in this pilot correlate with palliative/EOL consultation frequency and patient survival is underway.