Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

4541 - End of life resource utilization among patients receiving immunotherapy for advanced cancer

Date

22 Oct 2018

Session

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

Topics

End-of-Life Care

Tumour Site

Presenters

Jarred Burkart

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii548-viii556. 10.1093/annonc/mdy295

Authors

J.T. Burkart1, S. Patel1, A.M. Noonan1, P. Monk2, C.J. Presley1, T. Olencki1, K.L. Kendra3, G.A. Otterson1, J. Gustin4, L. Wei1, D.H. Owen1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Division Of Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital, 43210 - Columbus/US
  • 2 Division Of Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital, columbus/US
  • 3 Cutaneous Oncology Program, Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James, Columbus/US
  • 4 Palliative Medicine, Ohio State University, 43210 - Columbus/US

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 4541

Background

Patients (pts) with advanced cancer have high rates of healthcare resource utilization at the end of life (EOL). Immunotherapy (IO) has changed the treatment landscape for many patients with cancer. The impact of IO on resource utilization at the EOL for pts with metastatic disease, including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and referrals to hospice is unknown.

Methods

We conducted a single center, retrospective analysis of pts treated with PD-1/L1 or CTLA-4 antibodies alone or in combination from 2011 – 2017. We identified 1,113 pts from electronic health records and present here clinical information for 306 pts with metastatic disease and end of life outcome data for 188 decedents. Survival curves were compared using log-rank test for pts by disease, treatment type, ECOG performance status (PS) at treatment start, and age. Hospice referral rate was compared using Fisher’s exact test.

Results

Of the 306 pts, 131 (43%) had melanoma, 42 (14%) had renal cell carcinoma, 33 (11%) had non-small cell lung cancer, 22 (7%) had head and neck carcinoma, and 78 (25%) had another advanced malignancy. Treatment consisted of nivolumab in 130 (42%) pts, ipilimumab in 73 (24%), pembrolizumab in 59 (19%), nivolumab/ipilimumab in 23 (8%), atezolizumab in 9 (3%), and other IO combinations in 12 (4%). Of the 188 (61%) pts who died, 93 (49%) had at least one ED visit in the last month of life, 110 (59%) had at least one hospitalization, and 21 (11%) died in the hospital. Of all pts who died, 156 (83%) had hospice referral with a median of 11 days (range 1-420) between hospice referral and death. Overall survival (OS) was not associated with disease type (p = 0.11) or treatment (p = 0.832), but was associated with ECOG PS (p = 0.013). Referral to hospice did not vary by disease type (p = 0.945), treatment type, (p = 0.809) or age (p = 0.432), but did vary by ECOG PS (p = 0.006). Death within 72 hours of hospice referral rate varied significantly by inpatient or outpatient referral (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Hospitalizations and ED visits are frequent at the EOL among pts who received IO for advanced malignancies. There was a high referral rate to hospice, but the median time between hospice referral and death was short. Interventions to decrease aggressive EOL care are needed.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Jarred Burkart.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Disclosure

A.M. Noonan: Paid member of a data safety monitoring board from 2016-2017: Helsinn. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.