RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Despite the growing calls for early and ubiquitous completion of advance directives (ADs), studies exploring links between AD completion and their impact on outcomes of patients with cancer have mixed conclusions. We used the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) registry to compare end-of-life (EOL) quality measures and the effect of QOPI certification among patients with and without early AD completion, defined as completion within the first three oncology visits after cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Deidentified patient-level data were analyzed from the QOPI database from 2015 through 2017. Associations were assessed using Chi-square tests between early AD completion and patient enrollment in hospice < 7 days before death, chemotherapy receipt in the last 14 days of life, or with emergency room visits or intensive care unit admissions in the last 30 days of life. RESULTS: Data from 31,558 patients eligible for the AD question were analyzed. Patients treated at QOPI-certified practices had higher rates of early AD completion than patients at non-certified practices. Early AD completion was not associated with differences in hospice enrollment for < 7 days before death, chemotherapy receipt in the last 14 days of life, or emergency room visits or intensive care unit encounters in the last 30 days of life. CONCLUSION: The study found that QOPI certification is associated with higher rates of early AD completion. However, early AD completion was not associated with recognized EOL quality measures. Future research should focus on the timing, frequency, and content of AD conversations to demonstrate the impact on care at the EOL.
Asunto(s)
Cuidados Paliativos al Final de la Vida , Neoplasias , Humanos , Oncología Médica , Directivas Anticipadas , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/terapia , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Advances in genomic techniques have led to increased use of next-generation sequencing (NGS). We evaluated the extent to which these tests guide treatment decisions. METHODS: We developed and distributed a survey assessing NGS use and outcomes to a survey pool of ASCO members. Comparisons between groups were performed with Wilcoxon two-sample, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Among 178 respondents, 62% were male, 54% White, and 67% affiliated with academic centers. More than half (56%) indicated that NGS provided actionable information to a moderate or great extent. Use was highest (median ≥ 70% of cases) for lung and gastric cancer, and lowest (median < 25% of cases) in head and neck and genitourinary cancers. Approximately one third of respondents reported that, despite identification of an actionable molecular variant, patients were sometimes or often unable to access the relevant US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy. When NGS did not provide actionable results, individuals reporting great or moderate guidance overall from NGS in treatment recommendations were more likely to request the compassionate use of an unapproved drug (P < .001), enroll on a clinical trial (P < .01), or treat off-label with a drug approved for another indication (P = .02). CONCLUSION: When NGS identifies an actionable result, a substantial proportion of clinicians reported encountering challenges obtaining approved therapies on the basis of these results. Perceived overall impact of NGS appears associated with clinical behavior unrelated to actionable NGS test results, including pursuing off-label or compassionate use of unapproved therapies or referring to a clinical trial.