Predictive value of the patient reported outcome “living with cancer” instrument on overall survival in advanced cancer patients: A tool for guiding timing of palliative care consultations.

Authors

Stuart Goldberg

Stuart L. Goldberg

COTA, New York, NY

Stuart L. Goldberg , Dhakshila Paramanathan , Srikesh Arunajadai , Victoria DeVincenzo , Ruth Pe Benito , Brooke Gruman , Sukhi Kaur , Andre Goy , Usha Niranjan , Denis Fitzgerald , Julianne Wilkins Childs , James W. Lee , May D. Abdo-Matkiwsky , Kelly Choi , John Hervey , Eric Schultz , Andrew Pecora

Organizations

COTA, New York, NY, Regional Cancer Care Associates, Hackensack, NJ, Regional Cancer Care Associates, Hackettstown, NJ, Regional Cancer Care Associates, Little Silver, NJ, Regional Cancer Care Associates, Marmora, NJ, Regional Cancer Care Associates, Mt. Holly, NJ, Regional Cancer Care Associates, Sparta, NJ

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: The Living with Cancer (LWC) patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument evaluates distress from the point of view of the advanced cancer pt. The 7-item Likert survey measures 4 personhood domains (performance status, pain, burden [financial and family], depression) with scores ranging 0-112. In a pilot study of 433 cancer pts at a single center a score of >28 was associated with an increased likelihood of physician’s (blinded) opinion of need for end-of-life care discussions (J Palliative Med 2016). Methods: The LWC instrument is a statistically validated PRO (ASCO Palliative Care Symposium 2016). LWC was administered to 1024 cancer pts receiving non-curative therapy at 7 centers (Regional Cancer Care Associates, NJ) from Sept 2015 - Oct 2016. LWC surveys were linked to the Cota database, which extracts and enriches data from EHRs. Date of survey was used as the start point in time-to-event analysis. Results: 290 (28%) pts expired during the study (median f/u 9.9 months). 267 (26%) pts exceeded the threshold score of 28 defined in the pilot set (28 was also independently this study’s optimal cut point). Pts with an LWC score >28 had inferior 6 and 12 mo overall survival (69% and 54%) vs pts with scores <29 (88% and 73%) (log rank p<0.001). A Cox model demonstrated that LWC score and cancer type were significant (LWC: p<0.001, cancer types (compared to B): GI p<0.001, GU: p=0.013, T: p<0.001, M: p=0.334) A one point score increase in LWC resulted in a 1.8% increase in expected hazard. Among solid tumor pts with LWC >28, 20% died within the next 3 mo and 35% died within the next 6 mo, indicating appropriate timing for hospice and palliative care consults, respectively. Conclusions: Pt responses to the LWC instrument predict survival among advanced cancer pts and may be useful in guiding timing of palliative care consultations.

Cancer typeN<29 6mo OS<29 12mo OS>28 6mo OS>28 12mo OSLog rank p-value
Gastrointestinal (GI)33184.7 %66.0 %60.5 %41.0 %<0.001
Thoracic (T)14374.6 %52.3 %52.3 %37.6 %0.007
Genitourinary (GU)14086.6 %72.6 %68.8 %48.6 %0.008
Myeloma (M)23996.0 %86.0 %87.0 %76.2 %0.040
Breast (B)17192.9 %82.7 %84.6 %71.6 %0.105

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2017 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Patient and Survivor Care

Track

Patient and Survivor Care

Sub Track

End-of-Life Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 35, 2017 (suppl; abstr 10025)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.10025

Abstract #

10025

Poster Bd #

14

Abstract Disclosures