IMPORTANCE Symptom monitoring interventions are increasingly becoming the standard of care in oncology, but studies assessing these interventions in the hospital setting are lacking.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of a symptom monitoring intervention on symptom burden and health care use among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis nonblinded randomized clinical trial conducted from February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, assessed 321 hospitalized adult patients with advanced cancer and admitted to the inpatient oncology services of an academic hospital. Data obtained through November 13, 2020, were included in analyses, and all analyses assessed the intent-to-treat population.INTERVENTIONS Patients in both the intervention and usual care groups reported their symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) daily via tablet computers. Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports displayed during daily oncology rounds, with alerts for moderate, severe, or worsening symptoms. Patients assigned to usual care did not have their symptom reports displayed to their clinical teams. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the proportion of days with improved symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and readmission rates. Linear regression was used to evaluate differences in hospital length of stay. Competing-risk regression (with death treated as a competing event) was used to compare differences in time to first unplanned readmission within 30 days. RESULTSFrom February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, 390 patients (76.2% enrollment rate) were randomized. Study analyses to assess change in symptom burden included 321 of 390 patients (82.3%) who had 2 or more days of symptom reports completed (usual care, 161 of 193; intervention, 160 of 197). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 63.6 (12.8) years and were mostly male (180; 56.1%), self-reported as White (291; 90.7%), and married (230; 71.7%). The most common cancer type was gastrointestinal (118 patients; 36.8%), followed by lung (60 patients; 18.7%), genitourinary (39 patients; 12.1%), and breast (29 patients; 9.0%). No significant differences were detected between the intervention and usual care for the proportion of days with improved ESAS-physical (unstandardized coefficient [B] = −0.02; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.05; P = .56), ESAS-total (B = −0.05; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.02; P = .17), PHQ-4-depression (B = −0.02; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04; P = .55), and PHQ-4-anxiety (B = −0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03; P = .29) symptoms. Intervention patients also did not differ significantly from patients receiving usual care for the secondary end points of hospital length of stay (7.59 vs 7.47 days; B = 0.13; 95% CI, -1.04 to 1.29; P = .83) and 30-day readmission rates (26.5% vs 33.8%; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis randomized clinical trial found that for hospitalized patients with advanc...

Background Patients with malignant gliomas have a poor prognosis. However, little is known about patients’ and caregivers’ understanding of the prognosis and the primary treatment goal. Methods We conducted a prospective study in patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas (N = 72) and their caregivers (N = 55). At 12 weeks after diagnosis, we administered the Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire to assess understanding of prognosis and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to evaluate mood. We used multivariable regression analyses to explore associations between prognostic understanding and mood and McNemar tests to compare prognostic perceptions among patient-caregiver dyads (N = 48). Results A total of 87.1% (61/70) of patients and 79.6% (43/54) of caregivers reported that it was “very” or “extremely” important to know about the patient’s prognosis. The majority of patients (72.7%, [48/66]) reported that their cancer was curable. Patients who reported that their illness was incurable had greater depressive symptoms (B = 3.01, 95% CI, 0.89-5.14, P = .01). There was no association between caregivers’ prognostic understanding and mood. Among patient-caregiver dyads, patients were more likely than caregivers to report that their primary treatment goal was cure (43.8% [21/48] vs 25.0% [12/48], P = .04) and that the oncologist’s primary goal was cure (29.2% [14/48] vs 8.3% [4/48], P = .02). Conclusions Patients with malignant gliomas frequently hold inaccurate perceptions of the prognosis and treatment goal. Although caregivers more often report an accurate assessment of these metrics, many still report an overly optimistic perception of prognosis. Interventions are needed to enhance prognostic communication and to help patients cope with the associated distress.

12012 Background: Older adults with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative (post-op) length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, and readmissions. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention in older adults with GI cancers undergoing surgery. Methods: We randomly assigned patients age ≥65 with GI cancers planning to undergo surgical resection to receive a perioperative geriatric intervention or usual care. Intervention patients met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and post-op as an inpatient consultant. The geriatrician conducted a geriatric assessment and made recommendations to the surgical/oncology teams. The primary end point was post-op LOS. Secondary end points included post-op ICU use, readmission risk, and patient-reported symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and depression symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale). We conducted both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. Results: From 9/13/16-4/30/19, we randomized 160 patients (72.4% enrollment rate; median age = 72 [65-92]). The ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). The PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received both pre- and post-op intervention components. In ITT analyses, we found no significant differences between intervention and usual care in post-op LOS (7.2 v 8.2 days, P = .37), ICU use (23.3% v 32.4%, p = .23), and readmission rates within 90 days of surgery (21.7% v 25.0%, p = .65). Intervention patients reported lower depression symptoms (B = -1.39, P < .01) at post-op day 5 and fewer moderate/severe ESAS symptoms at post-op day 60 (B = -1.09, P = .02). In PP analyses, intervention patients had significantly shorter post-op LOS (5.9 v 8.2 days, P = .02) and lower rates of post-op ICU use (13.3% v 32.4%, p < .05), but readmission rates were not significantly different (16.7% v 25.0%, p = .36). Conclusions: Although this perioperative geriatric intervention did not have a significant impact on the primary end point in ITT analysis, we found encouraging results in several secondary outcomes and for the subgroup of patients who received the planned intervention. Future studies of this perioperative geriatric intervention should include efforts, such as telehealth visits, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02810652 .

No abstract