Systematic Review of Cancer Presentations with a Median Survival of Six Months or Less

Sutter Care at Home, San Mateo, CA, USA.
Journal of palliative medicine (Impact Factor: 2.06). 02/2012; 15(2):175-85. DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2011.0192
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To report cancer presentations with a median survival of 6 months or less and the effect of treatment on survival.
We searched the MEDLINE database to find studies on solid and hematologic cancers that reported presentations consistently shown to have a median survival of 6 months or less. Independent prognostic factors were combined if their combination resulted in greater than 50% 6-month-mortality. For each terminal presentation, we evaluated whether treatment improved survival.
The search identified 1500 potentially relevant articles, of which 650 were evaluated and 383 were included. Despite different cancer characteristics, a fairly universal picture of terminal disease included decreasing performance status, advancing age, weight loss, metastatic disease, disease recurrence, and laboratory abnormalities indicating extensive disease. Most of the prognostic indicators found were continuous, independent risk factors for mortality. We found little evidence that treatment improved survival at these terminal stages, with increased risk for toxicity.
This systematic review summarizes prognostic factors in advanced cancer that are consistently associated with a median survival of 6 months or less. There is little evidence that treatment prolongs survival at this stage.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer costs continue to increase alarmingly despite much debate about how they can be reduced. The oncology community needs to take greater responsibility for our own practice patterns, especially when using expensive tests and treatments with marginal value: we cannot continue to accept novel therapeutics with very small benefits for exorbitant prices. Patients, payers, and pharmaceutical communities should be constructively engaged to communicate medically and economically possible goals, and eventually, to reduce use and costs. Diagnostic tests and treatments should have to show true value to be added to existing protocols. In this article, we discuss three key drivers of costs: end-of-life care patterns, medical imaging, and drugs. We propose health-care models that have the potential to decrease costs and discuss solutions to maintain clinical benefit at an affordable price.
    The Lancet Oncology 02/2014; 15(3). DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70578-3 · 24.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Hospice brings substantial clinical benefits to dying patients and families but is underutilized by patients dying of hematologic malignancies (HM); nationwide, only 2% of HM patients use hospice. There are 70,000 deaths among U.S. patients with hematologic malignancies yearly. Objective: We measured the use and length of stay (LOS) in hospice among patients with HMs at a large academic cancer center. Design: This was a single center retrospective review of adult patients (≥18 years) with lymphoma, leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, aplastic anemia, and multiple myeloma referred for hospice. Measurements: Information included demographics, transplant, hospice type, LOS, and use of "expanded access" services. Results: Fifty-nine patients were referred to hospice, and 53 utilized hospice services, 25% of 209 HM decedents. Thirty-five received home hospice and 18 used inpatient hospice. The median home hospice LOS was nine days (SD 13) and inpatient hospice six days (SD 10). Nine patients with "expanded access" hospice received only a few blood transfusions, and none received radiation. Conclusions: HM patients are referred late or never for hospice services. Studies evaluating earlier integration of palliative and hospice care with usual HM care are warranted. We present a one-page negotiation form that we have found useful in negotiations among HM physicians, hospice medical directors, and payers.
    Journal of palliative medicine 01/2014; 17(2). DOI:10.1089/jpm.2013.0250 · 2.06 Impact Factor