评估实体瘤和血液恶性肿瘤患者的临终化疗

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
L. Baum, Rachel Rosenblum, B. Scarborough, Cardinale B. Smith
{"title":"评估实体瘤和血液恶性肿瘤患者的临终化疗","authors":"L. Baum, Rachel Rosenblum, B. Scarborough, Cardinale B. Smith","doi":"10.1080/09699260.2021.1872138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite guidelines, chemotherapy near end-of-life (EOL) remains common, particularly in hematologic malignancy (HM). Determinants of EOL chemotherapy for hospitalized cancer patients are not well elucidated. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study of patients who died inpatient within two weeks of chemotherapy in 2012 and 2014. By chart review, we identified patient characteristics, estimated performance status, categorized cause of death, and abstracted clinical intent. We identified 102 patients; 65% with HM and 35% with SM. Amongst these patients, rates of ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ status at time of death (P=0.36) were similar; patients with SM were more likely to receive a palliative care consultation (OR=7.6; 95%CI: 2.4–24.3) and less likely to die in intensive care (ICU) (OR=0.17; 95%CI=0.04–0.6). Progression of disease was the most common cause of death in both groups; patients with SM had lower likelihood of dying from a treatment-related cause (OR=0.06; 95%CI=0.01–0.32). Chemotherapy was administered closer to death in HM, 5.6 ± 4.2 days, compared to SM, 8.0 ± 3.7 days (IRR=2.18; 95%CI=0.58–3.78). For patients with HM, documented clinical reasoning emphasized curative intent. The dichotomization of palliative and oncologic care may contribute to worse EOL outcomes, particularly for patients receiving curative intent therapies.","PeriodicalId":45106,"journal":{"name":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","volume":"29 1","pages":"337 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09699260.2021.1872138","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating end-of-life chemotherapy for solid tumor and hematologic malignancy patients\",\"authors\":\"L. Baum, Rachel Rosenblum, B. Scarborough, Cardinale B. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09699260.2021.1872138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite guidelines, chemotherapy near end-of-life (EOL) remains common, particularly in hematologic malignancy (HM). Determinants of EOL chemotherapy for hospitalized cancer patients are not well elucidated. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study of patients who died inpatient within two weeks of chemotherapy in 2012 and 2014. By chart review, we identified patient characteristics, estimated performance status, categorized cause of death, and abstracted clinical intent. We identified 102 patients; 65% with HM and 35% with SM. Amongst these patients, rates of ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ status at time of death (P=0.36) were similar; patients with SM were more likely to receive a palliative care consultation (OR=7.6; 95%CI: 2.4–24.3) and less likely to die in intensive care (ICU) (OR=0.17; 95%CI=0.04–0.6). Progression of disease was the most common cause of death in both groups; patients with SM had lower likelihood of dying from a treatment-related cause (OR=0.06; 95%CI=0.01–0.32). Chemotherapy was administered closer to death in HM, 5.6 ± 4.2 days, compared to SM, 8.0 ± 3.7 days (IRR=2.18; 95%CI=0.58–3.78). For patients with HM, documented clinical reasoning emphasized curative intent. The dichotomization of palliative and oncologic care may contribute to worse EOL outcomes, particularly for patients receiving curative intent therapies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"337 - 341\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09699260.2021.1872138\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09699260.2021.1872138\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09699260.2021.1872138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管有指导方针,接近生命末期的化疗(EOL)仍然很常见,尤其是在血液系统恶性肿瘤(HM)中。癌症住院患者EOL化疗的决定因素尚不清楚。我们对2012年和2014年在化疗两周内住院死亡的患者进行了回顾性横断面描述性研究。通过图表回顾,我们确定了患者特征、估计的表现状态、分类的死因和抽象的临床意图。我们确定了102名患者;HM患者占65%,SM患者占35%。在这些患者中,死亡时“不复苏”状态的发生率相似(P=0.36);SM患者更有可能接受姑息治疗咨询(OR=7.6;95%CI:2.4–24.3),而在重症监护室(ICU)死亡的可能性较小(OR=0.17;95%CI=0.04–0.6)。疾病进展是两组中最常见的死亡原因;SM患者死于治疗相关原因的可能性较低(OR=0.06;95%CI=0.01–0.32)。HM患者化疗接近死亡的时间为5.6±4.2天,而SM患者为8.0±3.7天(IRR=2.18;95%CI=0.58–3.78)。对于HM患者,有记录的临床推理强调治疗意图。姑息治疗和肿瘤学治疗的二分法可能会导致更糟糕的EOL结果,尤其是对于接受治疗意图治疗的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating end-of-life chemotherapy for solid tumor and hematologic malignancy patients
Despite guidelines, chemotherapy near end-of-life (EOL) remains common, particularly in hematologic malignancy (HM). Determinants of EOL chemotherapy for hospitalized cancer patients are not well elucidated. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study of patients who died inpatient within two weeks of chemotherapy in 2012 and 2014. By chart review, we identified patient characteristics, estimated performance status, categorized cause of death, and abstracted clinical intent. We identified 102 patients; 65% with HM and 35% with SM. Amongst these patients, rates of ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ status at time of death (P=0.36) were similar; patients with SM were more likely to receive a palliative care consultation (OR=7.6; 95%CI: 2.4–24.3) and less likely to die in intensive care (ICU) (OR=0.17; 95%CI=0.04–0.6). Progression of disease was the most common cause of death in both groups; patients with SM had lower likelihood of dying from a treatment-related cause (OR=0.06; 95%CI=0.01–0.32). Chemotherapy was administered closer to death in HM, 5.6 ± 4.2 days, compared to SM, 8.0 ± 3.7 days (IRR=2.18; 95%CI=0.58–3.78). For patients with HM, documented clinical reasoning emphasized curative intent. The dichotomization of palliative and oncologic care may contribute to worse EOL outcomes, particularly for patients receiving curative intent therapies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Progress in Palliative Care is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal with an international perspective. It provides a central point of reference for all members of the palliative care community: medical consultants, nurses, hospital support teams, home care teams, hospice directors and administrators, pain centre staff, social workers, chaplains, counsellors, information staff, paramedical staff and self-help groups. The emphasis of the journal is on the rapid exchange of information amongst those working in palliative care. Progress in Palliative Care embraces all aspects of the management of the problems of end-stage disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信