US State Government Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines: Implications for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: State crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines in the US allocate scarce health care resources among patients. Anecdotal reports suggest that guidelines may disproportionately allocate resources away from patients with cancer, but no comprehensive evaluation has been performed. Objective: To examine the implications of US state CSC guidelines for patients with cancer, including allocation methods, cancer-related categorical exclusions and deprioritizations, and provisions for blood products and palliative care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional population-based analysis examined state-endorsed CSC guidelines published before May 20, 2020, that included health care resource allocation recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Guideline publication before or within 120 days after the first documented US case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), inclusion of cancer-related categorical exclusions and/or deprioritizations, provisions for blood products and/or palliative care, and associations between these outcomes and state-based cancer demographics. Results: Thirty-one states had health care resource allocation guidelines that met inclusion criteria, of which 17 had been published or updated since the first US case of COVID-19. States whose available hospital bed capacity was predicted to exceed 100% at 6 months (χ2 = 3.82; P = .05) or that had a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC; χ2 = 6.21; P = .01) were more likely to have publicly available guidelines. The most frequent primary methods of prioritization were the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (27 states [87%]) and deprioritizing persons with worse long-term prognoses (22 states [71%]). Seventeen states' (55%) allocation methods included cancer-related deprioritizations, and 8 states (26%) included cancer-related categorical exclusions. The presence of an in-state CCC was associated with lower likelihood of cancer-related categorical exclusions (multivariable odds ratio, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.004-0.87]). Guidelines with disability rights statements were associated with specific provisions to allocate blood products (multivariable odds ratio, 7.44 [95% CI, 1.28-43.24). Both the presence of an in-state CCC and having an oncologist and/or palliative care specialist on the state CSC task force were associated with the inclusion of palliative care provisions. Conclusions and Relevance: Among states with CSC guidelines, most deprioritized some patients with cancer during resource allocation, and one-fourth categorically excluded them. The presence of an in-state CCC was associated with guideline availability, palliative care provisions, and lower odds of cancer-related exclusions. These data suggest that equitable state-level CSC considerations for patients with cancer benefit from the input of oncology stakeholders.

Palliative Chemotherapy: Does It Only Provide False Hope? The Role of Palliative Care in a Young Patient With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Adenocarcinoma.

Case Study A 48-year-old female with recent diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of unknown origin and metastatic disease to the peritoneum initially presented to a nearby academic hospital with abdominal pain. She underwent exploratory laparotomy with tumor debulking surgery at that time. Shortly thereafter, she was readmitted to the same hospital with evidence of partial small bowel obstruction and treated conservatively with bowel rest, nasogastric (NG) tube placement, and intravenous (IV) fluid administration. Eventually the NG tube was removed, and she was discharged home. The following day, she received cycle one of palliative chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine at her local outpatient oncology clinic. She experienced persistent nausea and intermittent vomiting throughout the night and presented to our local community hospital for evaluation. At the time of admission, she was passing minimal flatus and had passed only a small bowel movement that morning. She had experienced nausea, vomiting, and poor oral intake for over a week. Other presenting symptoms included mild to moderate abdominal pain involving the upper abdomen. Upon evaluation, abdominal x-ray revealed dilated loops of small bowel, consistent with partial small bowel obstruction. An NG tube was placed, and the patient's symptoms were initially improved with bowel rest. Her medical history was significant for pulmonary embolism detected at the time of her adenocarcinoma diagnosis, and she was on oral anticoagulation and home oxygen. She also had a history of depression and total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) due to fibroids. Her social history revealed she was an office worker and married with two sons, ages 18 and 24. The 18-year-old son lived at home with the patient and her husband. The patient was eagerly awaiting the birth of a granddaughter, due in a few weeks' time. Her mother and father were also present daily during her hospitalization and were a major source of support for her and her family. At the time of hospital admission, a surgical team consultation concluded she was not a candidate for palliative surgery due to extensive disease burden. She was seen in consultation by medical oncology, who recommended resuming chemotherapy once the acute partial small- bowel obstruction resolved. Palliative Care Consult A palliative care consultation was requested to assist with symptom management, including pain and nausea relief. At the time of consultation, the patient appeared in mild distress due to abdominal pain and distention. Vital signs were stable. Physical exam was significant for absent bowel sounds and a mildly distended but nontender abdomen. The NG tube was in place, draining bilious gastric fluid. She had mild nonpitting edema involving the bilateral lower extremities. Discussion with the patient revealed values consistent with improving symptoms and extending life expectancy as long as possible. The patient expressed wishes for "aggressive treatment," which she defined as continuation of chemotherapy and full resuscitation. The palliative care team discussed symptom management options with the patient. Nonsurgical management of partial bowel obstruction was continued, including bowel rest, NG tube decompression, and IV fluids. Pain was controlled initially with IV morphine as needed. After symptom improvement and evidence of bowel function recovery, the NG tube was removed. However, after a short time, she required NG tube replacement due to recurrent nausea and vomiting. Discussion was initiated with the patient, who opted for placement of a venting gastrostomy tube (G-tube) and total parenteral nutrition (TPN), with the goal of symptom relief and administration of nutrition, which would allow for continuation of chemotherapy. During placement of the venting G-tube, the gastroenterology (GI) team noted extensive tumor involving the stomach, which made placement of the tube difficult. Additionally, anticoagulation was held during G-tube placement, and postoperatively, the patient experienced acute, right-sided chest pain and shortness of breath. Computed tomography (CT) scan with pulmonary embolus (PE) protocol revealed a new PE, and anticoagulation was changed to enoxaparin. Shortly thereafter, she became febrile and developed leukocytosis. Blood cultures revealed coagulase-negative staphylococcus from a Port-a-Cath source. She was treated with appropriate antibiotic therapy; however, follow-up blood cultures revealed persistent coagulase-negative staphylococcus bacteremia. Her indwelling Port-a-Cath was removed. After appropriate antibiotic therapy, a peripherally inserted central catheter line was inserted and TPN restarted. Reinstituting Palliative Chemotherapy Palliative care discussion with the patient confirmed her desire to reinstitute palliative chemotherapy, with the goal of restoring bowel function and returning home. Chemotherapy was resumed on day 15, despite concerns and even objections from several nursing staff members. The patient experienced treatment side effects, including prolonged thrombocytopenia. A platelet function antibody returned positive, consistent with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Enoxaparin was discontinued, and fondaparinux (Arixtra) was initiated. Platelet count recovered shortly thereafter. The patient required intense symptom management due to intractable abdominal pain and nausea and vomiting despite adequate venting G-tube decompression. Medical management was maximized with antiemetics, antisecretory agents, steroids, and antipsychotic agents, and symptoms eventually improved after cycle 2 of chemotherapy. Thereafter, the patient was discharged home. At the time of discharge, her symptoms were well controlled on minimal pain medications. She was still experiencing intermittent nausea but was passing flatus. By reducing the tumor burden, chemotherapy significantly improved her quality of life. She spent a total of 7 weeks in the hospital. During that time, she received two cycles of chemotherapy plus best supportive care and symptom management. Despite intermittent nausea and vomiting, administration of palliative chemotherapy allowed this patient to achieve her primary goals, which included returning home to her family and regaining some bowel function. Over the next several months, she received several more cycles of outpatient palliative chemotherapy. She experienced mild to moderate nausea and intermittent vomiting despite G-tube venting. Eventually, her disease progressed, and the patient chose to forgo any further intervention or chemotherapy. She was enrolled in hospice care and died comfortably at home surrounded by her family.

Oral adverse events in cancer patients treated with VEGFR-directed multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: This study characterized the incidence and clinical features of oral adverse events among cancer patients who received VEGFR-directed multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VR-TKI) therapies. METHODS: Electronic medical records of adult cancer patients treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, regorafenib, pazopanib, cabozantinib, imatinib, and bevacizumab therapy at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from 2009 to 2012 were reviewed. Data collected included patient characteristics, oral and non-oral adverse events, and time to onset. Time oral adverse event-free was the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 747 patients with 806 individual courses of therapy were treated for a median of 3.9months with sunitinib (n=161), sorafenib (n=172), regorafenib (n=15), pazopanib (n=132), cabozantinib (n=23), imatinib (n=144), or bevacizumab (n=159) for lung cancer (21%), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (15%), and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (13%). An oral adverse event was reported in 23.7% of patients at a median of 1.9months after starting therapy. The most commonly reported oral adverse event was oral mucosal sensitivity (dysesthesia), occurring in 12% of patients, typically without clinical findings. Multivariate models showed patients who received VR-TKI therapy were at greater risk of any oral adverse event compared with patients treated with imatinib or bevacizumab. Patients receiving VR-TKI therapy who developed an oral adverse event were also at increased risk for hand-foot skin reaction (15.9%). CONCLUSIONS: VR-TKI associated oral adverse events are characterized primarily by dysesthesia with lack of clinical signs. Oral dysesthesia is more commonly associated with VR-TKIs than with bevacizumab or imatinib. Management is largely empirical and requires further investigation.