Aligning patient values and code status: Choice of Diction's Effect (CODE) study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding resuscitation after cardiac arrest are critical from ethical, patient satisfaction, outcome, and healthcare cost standpoints. Physician-reported discussion barriers include topic discomfort, fear of time commitment, and difficulty articulating end-of-life concepts. The influence of language used in these discussions has not been tested. This study explored whether utilizing the alternate term "allow (a) natural death" changed code status decisions in hospitalized patients versus "do not resuscitate" (DNR). METHODS: All patients age 65 and over admitted to a general medicine hospital teaching service were screened (English-speaking, not ICU-level care, no active psychiatric illness, no substance misuse, no active DNR). Participants were randomized to resuscitation discussions with either DNR or "allow natural death" as the "no code" phrasing. Outcomes included patient resuscitation decision, satisfaction with and duration of the conversation, and decision correlation with illness severity and predicted resuscitation success. RESULTS: 102 participants were randomized to the "allow natural death" (N = 49) or DNR (N = 53) arms. The overall "no code" rate for our sample of hospitalized general medicine inpatients age >65 was 16.7%, with 13% in the DNR and 20.4% in the "allow natural death" arms (p = 0.35). Discussion length was similar in the DNR and "allow natural death" arms (3.9 + 3.2 vs. 4.9 + 3.9 minutes), and not significantly different (p = 0.53). Over 90% of participants were highly satisfied with their code status decision, without difference between arms (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Participants' code status discussions did not differ in "no code" rate between "allow natural death" and DNR arms but were short in length and had high patient satisfaction. Previously reported code status discussion barriers were not encountered. It is appropriate to screen code status in all hospitalized patients regardless of phrasing used.

Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients with advanced cutaneous malignancies.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are standard of care therapy for patients with cutaneous malignancies, the most frequently diagnosed cancers in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The activity and rate of allograft rejection in SOT recipients with advanced skin cancers treated with ICI is understudied. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of SOT recipients with advanced melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) who were treated with ICI. Unpublished cases from our institution and published cases from the literature were aggregated. Demographics, type of immunosuppressive therapy, type of ICI(s) administered, prior systemic therapies, tumor response to ICI, and evidence of organ rejection and/or failure were recorded. Objective response rates (ORR) and rates of graft rejection and failure are reported. Results: Ninety patients were identified; four patients from our institution and 86 unique patients from a literature review. ORR to first-line ICI for the entire cohort was 41.1% (37/90). ORR by tumor type was 31% (18/58), 64.3% (18/28), and 25.0% (1/4) for melanoma, cSCC, and MCC, respectively. The rate of graft rejection was 37.8% (34/90) with 61.8% (21/34) of these cases progressing to graft failure. Number of immunosuppressive agents (0, 1, 2, or 3) was inversely associated with rate of graft failure. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, ICIs demonstrate clinical activity in SOT recipients with cutaneous malignancies; however, the rate of graft rejection is high. Treatment plans should be individualized through thorough interdisciplinary discussion. Immunosuppressive modifications may be considered prior to starting treatment, but when feasible, enrollment on clinical trials is preferred.

Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge and Perceived Barriers Among Physicians in the United States.

Introduction: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and has historically been detected late in its course. Low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality by 20% and is currently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. However, compared with other cancer screening modalities, LDCT utilization remains low. This study surveyed office-based primary care physicians across the United States to better understand LDCT utilization. Methods: A total of 1500 family and internal medicine physicians selected from the American Medical Association's physician master file were surveyed between April and July 2019 regarding LDCT practices, eligibility, clinical scenarios, and perceived barriers. Results: The American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate 3 was 59% (652 respondents); 599 completed supplemental questions regarding lung cancer screening. A total of 88% of respondents discussed LDCT in the previous year, and 78% had ordered at least one LDCT. Most (59%) knew the tobacco exposure criteria for LDCT and correctly identified appropriate clinical scenarios (49%-86% responded correctly). Less than half of respondents correctly identified the age eligibility criteria (44%-45% responded correctly). In general, male physicians, those who graduated after 1990, and family medicine physicians were more likely to report accurate knowledge regarding LDCT eligibility. The top perceived barriers to LDCT were cost to the patient (48% identified as a major barrier), insurance not covering screening (46% major), and patients being unaware of lung cancer screening (40% major). Conclusion: Knowledge and practices about lung cancer screening are improving, though remain suboptimal. The most common barriers remain cost or insurance-based and suggest the need for a systems-based response to increase awareness and reduce the underutilization of LDCT.