Search

Introduction: Prognostic awareness varies widely among older adults with cancer. Accurate prognostic awareness helps to ensure delivery of care that is aligned with the patient's goals. Understanding factors associated with poor prognostic awareness in older adults with cancer may help identify which patients may need interventions to improve prognostic awareness. In this study, we assessed factors associated with poor prognostic awareness in older adults with cancer., Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of older patients with cancer referred to a geriatric oncology clinic at the University of Rochester. We provided paper questionnaires for patients to complete prior to their clinic assessment. Questionnaires asked patients to estimate their overall life expectancy and the life expectancy of a person of the same age with normal health. Prognostic awareness was considered poor if patients estimated living at least as long as a person of the same age with normal health. We assessed independent demographic and clinical variables (age, sex, race, income, religion, living situation, education, marital status, and cancer type and stage), aging-related factors (comorbidities, cognition, depression, social support, nutritional status, and physical function), and willingness to discuss prognosis. Factors significant at p ≤ 0.15 on bivariate analyses were included in the multivariable logistic regression model., Results: We included 257 patients; the mean age was 80 years (standard deviation [SD] 6.8, range 55-97), 37% were female, 71% were White, and 44% were married. Nearly two-thirds of patients (62%) had poor prognostic awareness: 7% estimated they would live longer than and 55% estimated they would live as long as a person of the same age with normal health. Half (49%) were willing to discuss prognosis, 29% were not, and 22% did not answer. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with poor prognostic awareness were older age [one-year increase; adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.12], race other than White (AOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.09-5.06), unwillingness to discuss prognosis (AOR 3.33, 95% CI 1.54-7.18), and stage I-III cancer (vs. stage IV, AOR 3.83, 95% CI 1.8-8.17)., Discussion: In a cohort of older patients with cancer, approximately two-thirds had poor prognostic awareness. Older age, race other than White, stage I-III cancer, and unwillingness to discuss prognosis were associated with higher odds of poor prognostic awareness. Interventions aiming to improve patients' prognostic awareness may need to gauge patients' willingness to discuss prognosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Loh has served as a consultant to Pfizer and Seattle Genetics and has received honoraria from Pfizer. All other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Serious illness conversations may help patients avoid unwanted treatments. We previously piloted the telehealth Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome., Objective: In this study, we aimed to understand the experience of the telehealth SICP from the clinician's perspective., Methods: We studied 10 clinicians who delivered the telehealth SICP to 20 older adults with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. Quantitative outcomes included confidence and acceptability. Confidence was measured using a 22-item survey (range 1-7; a higher score is better). Acceptability was measured using an 11-item survey (5-point Likert scale). Hypothesis testing was performed at α=.10 (2-tailed) due to the pilot nature and small sample size. Clinicians participated in audio-recorded qualitative interviews at the end of the study to discuss their experience., Results: A total of 8 clinicians completed the confidence measure and 7 clinicians completed the acceptability measure. We found a statistically significant increase in overall confidence (mean increase of 0.5, SD 0.6; P=.03). The largest increase in confidence was in helping families with reconciliation and goodbye (mean 1.4, SD 1.5; P=.04). The majority of clinicians agreed that the format was simple (6/7, 86%) and easy to use (6/7, 86%). Clinicians felt that the telehealth SICP was effective in understanding their patients' values about end-of-life care (7/7, 100%). A total of three qualitative themes emerged: (1) the telehealth SICP deepened relationships and renewed trust; (2) each telehealth SICP visit felt unique and personal in a positive way; and (3) uninterrupted, unrushed time optimized the visit experience., Conclusions: The telehealth SICP increased confidence in having serious illness conversations while deepening patient-clinician relationships., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04745676; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04745676., (©Marissa LoCastro, Ying Wang, Tristan Yu, Soroush Mortaz-Hedjri, Jason Mendler, Sally Norton, Rachelle Bernacki, Thomas Carroll, Heidi Klepin, Lucy Wedow, Sean Goonan, Hannah Erdos, Brenda Bagnato, Jane Liesveld, Eric Huselton, Benzi Kluger, Kah Poh Loh. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 27.06.2024.)