Search

198 Background: Supportive care (SC) in oncology includes the prevention and management of cancer- and treatment-related symptoms and adverse effects. Previous studies have shown that SC needs may differ depending on clinical stage, patients’ gender, comorbidities, and chronological age. The goal of this study was to describe the SC needs of older adults with metastatic cancer enrolled in a SC patient navigation program at Instituto Nacional Ciencias Medicas Salvador Zubiran, an academic, public hospital in Mexico City, and to compare them with those of their younger counterparts. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective study which included adult patients with newly diagnosed metastatic solid tumors. The patients’ SC needs and symptoms were assessed by a patient navigator using validated questionnaires, and then a multidisciplinary team created a personalized SC plan to address those needs. Potential SC interventions included pain management, physical therapy, geriatric assessment/intervention, mitigation of caregiver burden, depression/anxiety management, and nutritional assessment/intervention. Patients were divided into two age groups (≥65 and < 65 years), and differences in SC needs between groups were compared using Chi square, Student’s T and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Out of 337 patients with metastatic solid tumors included between April 2018 and October 2020 (median age 64 years, range 19-94 years), 164 (48%) were aged ≥65 years. Among older patients (≥65 years), 130 (79%) had an abnormal geriatric screening and were referred for a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Older adults were more likely than younger patients to report malnutrition needing nutritional assessment/intervention (81 vs. 65%, p < 0.01) and to experience fatigue needing a referral to physical therapy (77 vs. 66%, p = 0.03). We found no differences in moderate/severe pain (45 vs 47%, p = 0.79), depression/anxiety (69 vs 77%, p = 0.09), caregiver burden (42 vs 34%, p = 0.12) or sleep disturbances (54 vs 64%, p = 0.07) between groups. However, the total number of SC needs was significantly higher for older adults than for their younger counterparts (4.9 vs. 3.9, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The results of this study show that older adults with metastatic solid tumors have more SC needs and require more symptom management interventions than their younger counterparts. The need for nutritional interventions and physical therapy was significantly higher among older patients, thus, these components should be considered an essential part of geriatric oncology multidisciplinary programs. Oncologists treating older adults with advanced cancer should screen for SC needs among older patients in order to provide targeted interventions.

12112 Background: We previously reported improvements in access to SC, advance directive completion, and pain control in a RCT comparing a patient navigator-led early SC intervention vs. usual care among patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic cancer in Mexico (NCT03293849). We now present results on healthcare utilization and OS. Methods: Patients were randomized to PN or usual oncology care. Patients in the PN arm received SC interventions by a navigator-led multidisciplinary team (palliative care, physical therapy, geriatrics, psychology) in the first 12 weeks after diagnosis. At 12-weeks, patients allocated to usual care were able to cross-over to PN and receive multidisciplinary SC. We analyzed the number (no.) of emergency room (ER) visits, their cause, and whether they were potentially avoidable (as determined by expert consensus), using descriptive statistics and X2 tests. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Results: 133 patients (median age 60, range 23-93; 52% male) were randomized (66 PN, 67 control) from 08/17 to 04/18. Median follow-up was 22.8 months. 61% had gastrointestinal tumors, and 45% had a calculated life expectancy ≤6 months. 69% of patients randomized to usual care crossed-over to PN and received SC interventions. 80% of patients attended the ER ≥once (median no. of visits = 2). No difference was found between patients randomized to early SC or usual care in ER visits (2.4 vs. 2.3, p = 0.58). Out of a total 316 ER visits, the most common reason was infections (n = 69, 22%), followed by pain (n = 40, 13%), and indwelling catheter-related complications (n = 23, 7%). 41% of ER visits were considered as potentially avoidable, with no difference in avoidable visits found between arms (1.7 vs. 1.7, p = 0.49). No differences between arms were found in no. of hospitalizations (0.8 vs. 0.6 p = 0.82). Survival results were assessed after 64% of patients had died (n = 85), finding no statistically significant OS difference between the early SC intervention and the usual care arms (11.0 vs 13.0 months, p = 0.77) Conclusions: In the context of a limited-resource healthcare system, the early delivery of SC did not improve healthcare utilization, reduce avoidable ER visits, or prolong OS compared to the implementation of SC at a later time, which might be partially explained by the unavailability of hospice or home care, and by high rates of cross-over between arms. Clinical trial information: NCT03293849 .

11505 Background: Early integration of SC to the treatment of advanced cancer can improve outcomes, but this may be challenging in developing countries due to a lack of resources and knowledge. In this RCT, we examined whether PN could improve early access to SC among Mexican patients with metastatic solid tumors as recommended by ASCO guidelines. Methods: Adult patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic cancer were randomly assigned to PN or standard oncologic care. At baseline, a navigator assessed the patients’ SC needs (depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain, caregiver burden) using validated questionnaires administered with an electronic tablet. For those in the PN arm, a personalized SC plan was created and implemented by a multidisciplinary team (palliative care, physical therapy, geriatrics, psychology, psychiatry). The primary outcome was access to SC, defined as receipt of SC interventions in the first 3 months (mo) after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included advanced directive (AD) completion (for patients with expected survival ≤6 mo in accordance to Mexican law), changes in SC needs, and changes in quality of life (assessed using FACT-G). Results: 133 patients (median age 60, range 23-93; 52% male) were randomized (66 PN, 67 control). 61% of patients had gastrointestinal tumors. 94% of patients in the PN arm completed baseline assessments and received recommendations from the navigator. At 3 mo, 37 patients died or were lost to follow-up (16 PN, 21 control; p = 0.45), and 96 completed assessments. SC interventions were provided to 73% of patients in the PN arm and 24% of controls (p < 0.01). In the PN arm, 48% of 29 eligible patients completed AD, compared to 0% of eligible controls (p < 0.01). At 3 mo, patients in the PN arm were significantly less likely to report moderate/severe pain than controls (10 vs 33%, p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in other symptoms or in FACT-G scores (76 vs 76.3, p = 0.46) between PN and control arms at 3 mo. Conclusions: PN can lead to significant improvements in early access to SC, AD completion, and pain control among patients with metastatic cancer treated in a resource-limited setting. Clinical trial information: NCT03293849.

124 Background: Although referral to supportive care (SC) services improves quality of life in patients with cancer, several barriers can hamper access to SC, particularly in developing countries with limited resources. We studied patient-reported barriers for accessing SC in a cancer center in Mexico City, and factors associated with those barriers. Methods: Patients with metastatic cancer enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of patient navigation to improve access to SC in a public cancer center in Mexico City (NCT03293849) were included. At baseline, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected, and patients answered a survey in which they reported barriers to obtain cancer treatment and SC. We analyzed the frequency of reported barriers using descriptive statistics, and explored if sociodemographic factors were associated with a higher likelihood of reporting any barrier. Results: 134 patients were included between 08/17 and 04/18. Median age was 60 years (range 23-93; 51.5% male); 89.5% lived in urban areas; 42.5% had less than high school education; 12% had formal employment; and 27.3% had no insurance coverage. 61% had gastrointestinal, 16 % genitourinary, and 23 % other tumors. Home-to-hospital time was < 2 hours (h) in 60%, 2-6 h in 27%, and ≥6 h in 13%. 47.7% of the patients reported a household income of less than 630 USD/month. The mean number of reported barriers was 1.96 (Standard Deviation 1.77). 78% identified at least one barrier to care, and 35% reported ≥3 barriers (range 1-8). The most commonly reported barriers were: financial burden (47%), beliefs about treatment (28%), lack of transportation (22%), fear (19%), home-to-hospital distance (16%), patient-provider communication (13%), employment (9%), and caregiving for other people (3%). Patients living in rural areas more often reported home-to-hospital distance as a barrier than those living in urban areas (69 vs 11%, p < .01). Conclusions: Most patients with metastatic cancer seen at a cancer center in Mexico identified at least one barrier to cancer care, with some reporting up to 8. Many of the reported barriers are potentially modifiable through patient navigation or SC interventions.

42 Background: Patient awareness regarding diagnosis and prognosis may lead to improved treatment shared decision making and improve satisfaction with treatment choices. We assessed the diagnostic and prognostic awareness among newly diagnosed patients with metastatic solid tumors in a public cancer center in Mexico City. Methods: Patients with metastatic cancer enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of patient navigation to improve access to supportive care in a public cancer center in Mexico City (NCT03293849) were included. At baseline, demographic, social, and clinical characteristics were collected. Patients answered open-ended questions regarding knowledge about their diagnosis and prognosis, as well as on patient-physician communication. We analyzed prognostic and diagnostic awareness using descriptive statistics, and explored if patients reporting worse patient-physician communication were less aware of their diagnosis and prognosis. Results: 125 patients were included between 08/17 and 04/18. Median age was 61 years (range 23-93; 52% male); 88.8% lived in urban areas; 41.6% had less than high school education; and 57.6% were married or partnered. 61% had gastrointestinal, 14% genitourinary, and 25% other tumors. Although all patients had had at least one consultation with an oncologist, 3% did not know what their diagnosis was. 77% of patients considered they had prognostic awareness; however, only 14% considered that their disease had a bad prognosis, and 2% considered they could be cured. 6.5% of the patients believed the information given by their oncologist was insufficient, and 8% felt they had trouble getting information about their disease. We found no statistically significant relationship between perceived barriers to patient-physician communication and diagnostic (p = 0.28) or prognostic (p = 0.18) awareness. Conclusions: Although most patients understood their oncologic diagnosis, a significant proportion were unaware of their prognosis. Communication strategies, tailored to the specific characteristics of each patient population and aimed at improving prognostic awareness, are fundamental for optimal shared decision making.

6544 Background: High cancer mortality rates in developing nations are partially driven by advanced stages at diagnosis and limited access to care. In Mexico, the interval from problem identification to start of treatment can be up to 7 months, mostly due to healthcare system delays. We implemented a patient navigation (PN) program aimed at reducing time to referral to cancer centers for patients (pts) with a suspicion or a diagnosis of cancer seen at a public general hospital in Mexico City. Methods: Pts age > 18 seen at Hospital General Ajusco Medio in Mexico City who required referral to a cancer center were enrolled. Baseline demographic, economic and psychosocial data were collected. A Patient Navigator assisted pts with scheduling; paperwork; obtaining results in a timely manner; transportation; and with other cultural barriers. The goal of the PN program was for at least 70% of enrolled patients to obtain a specialized appointment at a cancer center within the first 3 months from enrollment. Results: 53 pts (median age 54, range 19-80; 51% female) were included between 01/16 and 12/16. 19% (n = 10) had breast/GYN, 19% (n = 10) GU, 19% (n = 10) endocrine, 19% GI (n = 10) and 14% (n = 13) other tumors. All the pts were uninsured, 59% (n = 30) had less than middle school education, 80% (n = 41) were unemployed and 96% (n = 49) had a monthly household income of < $360 USD. 54% (n = 28) reported deprivation in at least one basic living need (education, running water, toilet, electricity or flooring). The most commonly identified barriers to healthcare access were financial (73%, N = 37), lack of transportation (47%, N = 24), fear (37%, N = 19) and poor communication with healthcare workers (35%, N = 18). Mean time to referral was 11 days (range 0–46, SD 11.2) and mean time to cancer specialist appointment 26 days (range 1–94, SD 21.18). 92% of pts successfully obtained appointments at a cancer center in < 3 months. Conclusions: Compared with previously reported data, this PN program shortened time to referral to a cancer center for pts with a suspicion or diagnosis of cancer in Mexico City. PN represents a potential solution to overcome barriers to healthcare access for underserved pts with cancer in developing countries.