Abstract 1497P
Background
Resuscitation decisions in cancer patients continue to challenge Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) and often do not take place until clinical deterioration, risking futile Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) attempts. This research investigated outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Arrest (IHCA) in advanced cancer within an NHS Trust in the UK, alongside viewpoints of HCPs.
Methods
This mixed-methods study comprised two components. Retrospective data analysis examined IHCA outcomes in patients with advanced cancer in Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (NUTH) between 2012-2022. Main outcomes included rate of Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) and survival to discharge. Other outcomes were median overall and post-discharge survival. A survey was distributed to senior HCPs in Acute Medicine (AM), Emergency Medicine (EM) and Oncology, to establish perceptions of CPR success in advanced cancer, and gather current opinion on issues surrounding resuscitation in this context.
Results
Among 83 patients, rate of ROSC was 33.7% and 9.6% survived to discharge. Among survivors, median overall survival was 2 days, and post-discharge survival 391 days. 92 HCPs responded to the survey. The mean likelihood of a patient with advanced cancer achieving ROSC was estimated at 13.4%. Oncologists were ranked the most appropriate HCP to discuss resuscitation, and outpatient clinic appointments the most suitable place. From analysis of text comments, important themes were (1) Place, person and timing, (2) Individualised decision-making, and (3) Improving patient understanding.
Conclusions
Survival following CPR is poor in advanced cancer, and fewer than 10% patients in this study gained any meaningful survival benefit. A collective approach is needed from HCPs to integrate personalised discussions about future care and resuscitation into routine cancer management. These should begin early rather than at a time of crisis, with someone the patient trusts. Blanket decisions are not suitable for any patient and cannot supersede clinical judgement alongside assessment of patient priorities and values.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Newcastle Hospitals Charity.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1564P - Limited participation in breast cancer screening among low-SES women: A matter of engagement or of health literacy?
Presenter: Allegra Ferrari
Session: Poster session 10
1566P - Optimizing participation in lung cancer screening program: Results from the first round in ILYAD study in Lyon University Hospital
Presenter: Emmanuel Grolleau
Session: Poster session 10
1567P - Physicians' adenoma detection rate and the risk of colorectal cancer in sequential screening programs: An observational cohort study
Presenter: Li Xie
Session: Poster session 10
1568P - Challenges in pilot lung cancer screening in Vojvodina, Serbia
Presenter: Jelena Djekic Malbasa
Session: Poster session 10
1569P - Secondary delay in breast cancer diagnosis and role of rural medical practitioners: A cause and cure finding study
Presenter: Rahul Agarwal
Session: Poster session 10
1570P - Factors and impacts of delayed presentation for county-level patients with breast cancer in a real-life setting in China
Presenter: Yinghua Ji
Session: Poster session 10
1571P - The reasons that motivate a change of specialties among oncology residents
Presenter: Christophe Ducrocq
Session: Poster session 10
1572P - Factors associated with career choice in oncology among medical students
Presenter: Nicolas Penel
Session: Poster session 10
1573P - Global cancer statistics for adolescents and young adults: New estimates from GLOBOCAN 2022
Presenter: Wang-Zhong Li
Session: Poster session 10
Resources:
Abstract