BACKGROUND: This study examined the changes in outpatient palliative care services at US cancer centers over the past decade. METHODS: Between April and August 2018, all National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and a random sample of 1252 non-NCI-designated cancer centers were surveyed. Two surveys used previously in a 2009 national study were sent to each institution: a 22-question cancer center executive survey regarding palliative care infrastructure and attitudes toward palliative care and an 82question palliative care program leader survey regarding detailed palliative care structures and processes. Survey findings from 2018 were compared with 2009 data from 101 cancer center executives and 96 palliative care program leaders. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (140 of 203) for the cancer center executive survey and 75% (123 of 164) for the palliative care program leader survey. Among NCI-designated cancer centers, a significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics was observed between 2009 and 2018 (59% vs 95%; odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-48.2; P < .001) with no significant changes in inpatient consultation teams (92% vs 90%; P = .71), palliative care units (PCUs; 26% vs 40%; P = .17), or institution-operated hospices (31% vs 18%; P = .14). Among non-NCI-designated cancer centers, there was no significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics (22% vs 40%; P = .07), inpatient consultation teams (56% vs 68%; P = .27), PCUs (20% vs 18%; P = .76), or institution-operated hospices (42% vs 23%; P = .05). The median interval from outpatient palliative care referral to death increased significantly, particularly for NCI-designated cancer centers (90 vs 180 days; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant growth in outpatient palliative care clinics, there remain opportunities for improvement in the structures and processes of palliative care programs.

Context Dexamethasone is often used to treat dyspnea in cancer patients but evidence is lacking. Objectives We determined the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial of dexamethasone in cancer patients, and estimated the efficacy of dexamethasone in the treatment of dyspnea. Methods In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, patients with dyspnea ≥4 were randomized to receive either dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily × four days then 4 mg twice daily × three days or placebo for seven days, followed by an open-label phase for seven days. We documented the changes in dyspnea (0-10 numeric rating scale [NRS]), spirometry measures, quality of life and toxicities. Results A total of 41 patients were randomized and 35 (85%) completed the blinded phase. Dexamethasone was associated with a significant reduction in dyspnea NRS of -1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.3 to -0.5, P=0.01) by day 4 and -1.8 (95% CI -3.2 to -0.3, P=0.02) by day 7. In contrast, placebo was associated with a reduction of -0.7 (95% CI -2.1 to 0.6, P=0.38) by day 4 and -1.3 (95% CI -2.4 to -0.2, P=0.03) by day 7. The between-arm difference was not statistically significant. Drowsiness improved with dexamethasone. Dexamethasone was well tolerated with no significant toxicities. Conclusion A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of dexamethasone was feasible with a low attrition rate. Our preliminary data suggest that dexamethasone may be associated with rapid improvement in dyspnea and was well tolerated. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

The caregiver ESAS is a feasible tool and was found useful by our caregivers. Further research is needed to modify the ESAS based on caregivers' recommendations, and further psychometric studies need to be conducted.

6502 Background: Many hospitals have established goals-of-care (GOC) programs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, few have reported their outcomes. MD Anderson Cancer Center launched a multicomponent interdisciplinary GOC (myGOC) program in March 2020 that involved risk stratification, team huddles to discuss care planning, oncologist-initiated GOC discussions, communication training, palliative care involvement, rapid-response GOC team deployment, and daily monitoring with immediate feedback. We examined the impact of this myGOC program among medical inpatients. Methods: This single-center study with a quasi-experimental design included consecutive adult patients with cancer admitted to medical units at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas during an 8-month pre-implementation (May 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019) and post-implementation period (May 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020). The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital mortality, and proportion/timing of patients with in-hospital do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, medical power of attorney (MPOA), living will (LW) and out-of-hospital DNR (OOHDNR). Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for differences in potential covariates, including age, sex, cancer diagnosis, race/ethnicity, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score. With a sample size of 600 ICU patients over each time period and a baseline ICU mortality of 28%, we had 80% power to detect a 5% reduction in mortality using a two-tailed test at 5% significance level. Results: This study involved 12,941 hospitalized patients with cancer (Pre n = 6,977; Post n = 5,964) including 1365 ICU admissions (Pre n = 727; Post n = 638). After myGOC initiation, we observed a significant reduction in ICU mortality (28.2% vs. 21.9%; change -6.3%, 95% CI -9.6, -3.1; P = 0.0001). We also observed significant decreases in length of ICU stay (mean change -1.4 days, 95% CI -2.0, -0.7 days; P < 0.0001) and in-hospital mortality (7% vs. 6.1%, mean change -0.9%, 95% CI -1.5%, -0.3%; P = 0.004). The proportion of hospitalized patients with an in-hospital DNR order increased significantly from 14.7% to 19.6% after implementation (odds ratio [OR] 1.4, 95% CI 1.3, 1.5; P < 0.0001) and DNR was established earlier (mean difference -3.0 d, 95% CI -3.9 d, -2.1 d; P < 0.0001). OOHDNR (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1, 1.6, P < 0.0007) also increased post-implementation but not MPOA and LW. MPOA, LW and OOHDNR were documented significantly earlier relative to the index hospitalization in the post-implementation period (P < 0.005 for all). Conclusions: This study showed improvement in hospital outcomes and care plan documentation after implementation of a system-wide, multicomponent GOC intervention. Our findings may have implications for GOC programs during the pandemic and beyond.

Results. The percentage of infants receiving PPC in the NICU increased over time from 7% in 2009 to 38% in 2017. Infant decedents (N¼140) who received PPC in the NICU were mostly Caucasian (58%) and African American (39%), receiving Medicaid (84%), and had genetic (53%) and prematurity (34%) diagnoses. There were no statistically significant differences between racial or urban versus rural groups in the timing of PPC consultation during the NICU admission. Infants who lived over 1 hour away received PPC significantly later than infants living less than 1 hour away from the NICU (p¼ 0.03). Conclusion.There were no racial or rurality differences in PPC timing during hospitalization; however, traveling over an hour to the hospital was associated with a delay in receiving PPC.

12106 Background: Clinicians often hesitate to discuss prognosis with patients because of prognostic uncertainty. The use of validated prognostic models may enhance prognostic confidence and/or prognostic accuracy. Prognostic confidence is a novel concept that has not been well studied and may support prognosis-based decision making. We examined the impact of a web-based prognostic intervention on physicians’ prognostic confidence. Methods: In this prospective study, palliative care specialists estimated the prognosis of patients with advanced cancer seen at an outpatient supportive care clinic using the temporal, surprise and probabilistic questions for 6 m, 3 m, 2 m, 1 m, 2 w, 1 w and 3 d survival. They then reviewed information from a web-based prognostic calculator ( www.predictsurvival.com ) that provided survival predictions from 7 validated prognostic scores, including the Palliative Prognostic Score, Palliative Prognostic Index, and Palliative Performance Status. The clinicians then provided their prognostic estimates post-intervention. The primary outcome was prognostic confidence (0-10 numeric rating scale, where 0 = not at all, 10 = most confident) before vs. after the study intervention. Secondary outcomes included (1) confidence to share the prognosis with patients, (2) confidence to make prognosis-based care recommendations (agreement = strongly agree or agree) and (3) prognostic accuracy. With 220 patients, we had 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.66 with 2-sided α 0.05. We compared the pre-post data using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for the primary outcome and McNemar test for secondary outcomes. Results: 216 patients with advanced cancer (mean age 61, 50% female) were included and 154 (71%) died. The median (IQR) actual survival was 90 (39, 178) days; the median (IQR) predicted survival before and after intervention were 90 (60, 90) and 80 (60, 90) days, respectively. Prognostic confidence significantly increased after the intervention (pre vs. post: median 6 vs. 7, P < 0.001). A significantly greater proportion of clinicians reported that they felt confident enough about their prognostic estimate to share it with patients (44% vs. 74%, P < 0.001) and to formulate care recommendations (80% vs. 94%, P < 0.001) after the intervention. Prognostic accuracy did not differ significantly before and after the intervention, ranging from 72-100% for the temporal question, 45-97% for the surprise questions and 38%-100% for the probabilistic questions (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Among patients with advanced cancer seen at a supportive care clinic, the web-based prognostic intervention was associated with greater prognostic confidence and willingness to discuss prognosis, despite not significantly altering clinicians’ prognostic estimate or prognostic accuracy. Further research is needed to examine how prognostic tools may be able to augment prognostic discussions and clinical decision making.

More than half of patients receiving prescription medicine for cancer pain have been reported to experience inadequate pain relief or breakthrough pain. Buccal administration can deliver lipophilic opioids rapidly to the systemic circulation through the buccal mucosa, limiting gastrointestinal motility and first-pass metabolism. This review updates the safety and efficacy of fentanyl buccal soluble film (FBSF) in patients with cancer pain. Literature was identified through searches of Medline (PubMed). Search terms included combinations of the following: cancer pain, fentanyl, fentanyl buccal soluble film, pharmacology, kinetics, safety, efficacy and toxicity. FBSF is an oral transmucosal form of fentanyl citrate developed as a treatment of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. Studies have shown that it is well tolerated in the oral cavity, with adequate bioavailability and safety in cancer patients. Further studies are warranted to evaluate, in comparison with other short-acting opioids, its efficacy in the management of breakthrough cancer pain, its addictive potential and its economic impact in cancer patients.

12021 Background: Despite compelling data supporting their use, patient reported outcomes (PROs) are not widely integrated into routine cancer care. In our Palliative Care (PC) practice, all patients complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), a simple, validated 10-item PRO tool which uses a 0 to 10 rating of 10 common symptoms (pain, fatigue, nausea, drowsiness, appetite, sleep, dyspnea, well-being, anxiety & depression). Our team has previously validated the Global Distress Score (GDS), a sum of 9 physical + psychosocial ESAS items. Here, we studied the implementation of the GDS as a streamlined way to capture the overall symptom burden while providing prognostic value. Methods: We queried a PC database for patients w metastatic cancer at time of 1st PC visit. GDS was calculated & grouped into 3 cohorts based on previous work & clinical experience: high (GDS of 35+), Moderate (16-34) or Low (0-15). Overall Survival was defined as time from 1st PC visit date to death. Regression analysis, ANOVA and t-tests were conducted. Results: 333 patients met the inclusion criteria: median age 62.4y (range 20.5-88.4y), 25 AYA (15-39y), 169 mid age (35-64y), 140 seniors (65y+); 190 female 143 male; median prior therapies 2 (range 0-11), 227 patients were in 2nd line + above therapy. Median ECOG PS 2; 124 patients w ECOG PS 3 & 33 w ECOG PS 4. 262 patients had died at time of analysis. Lower OS was associated w higher GDS (r 0.21, P < 0.001). OS in Low, Mod, High GDS cohorts was 13.1m, 7.9m, & 3.7m, respectively (p < 0.001). There were no sig OS difference between 3 age cohorts (AYA 5.2m, mid age 6m, seniors 5.4m, p0.56). Conclusions: Higher GDS score was associated with a clinically significant decrease in overall survival highlighting the potential of the ESAS as a PRO tool in prognostication and clinical decision making for patients with advanced cancers with a high symptom burden. In the realm of increasingly complex PRO instruments, the ESAS represents a simple, well-validated tool which, in our studies and 25 years of clinical experience, takes the patient less than a minute to complete, with subscores such as the GDS which carry a highly prognostic utility for patients with advanced cancers.