The treatment of cancer patients near death is becoming increasingly aggressive over time.

A B S T R A C TThe purpose of this article is to review the literature and update analyses pertaining to the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. Specifically, we will discuss trends and factors responsible for chemotherapy overuse very near death and underutilization of hospice services. Whether the concept of overly aggressive treatment represents a quality-of-care issue that is acceptable to all involved stakeholders is an open question.

No abstract

The usefulness of these measures will depend on whether the concept of intensity of care near death can be further validated as an acceptable and important quality issue among patients, their families, health care providers, and other stakeholders in oncology.

No abstract

Propensity score methods are being increasingly used as a less parametric alternative to traditional regression to balance observed differences across groups in both descriptive and causal comparisons. Data collected in many disciplines often have analytically relevant multilevel or clustered structure. The propensity score, however, was developed and has been used primarily with unstructured data. We present and compare several propensity-score-weighted estimators for clustered data, including marginal, cluster-weighted and doubly-robust estimators. Using both analytical derivations and Monte Carlo simulations, we illustrate bias arising when the usual assumptions of propensity score analysis do not hold for multilevel data. We show that exploiting the multilevel structure, either parametrically or nonparametrically, in at least one stage of the propensity score analysis can greatly reduce these biases. These methods are applied to a study of racial disparities in breast cancer screening among beneficiaries in Medicare health plans.

Background: Racial/ethnic disparities in health care are well documented, but less is known about whether disparities occur within or between hospitals for specific inpatient processes of care. We assessed racial/ethnic disparities using the Hospital Quality Alliance Inpatient Quality of Care Indicators. Methods: We performed an observational study using patient-level data for acute myocardial infarction (5 care measures), congestive heart failure (2 measures), community-acquired pneumonia (2 measures), and patient counseling (4 measures). Data were obtained from 123 hospitals reporting to the University HealthSystem Consortium from the third quarter of 2002 to the first quarter of 2005. A total of 320 970 patients 18 years or older were eligible for at least 1 of the 13 measures. Results: There were consistent unadjusted differences between minority and nonminority patients in the quality of care across 8 of 13 quality measures (from 4.63 and 4.55 percentage points for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for acute myocardial infarction and con-gestive heart failure [PϽ.01] to 14.58 percentage points for smoking cessation counseling for pneumonia [P=.02]). Disparities were most pronounced for counseling measures. In multivariate models adjusted for individual patient characteristics and hospital effect, the magnitude of the disparities decreased substantially, yet remained significant for 3 of the 4 counseling measures; acute myocardial infarction (unadjusted, 9.00 [PϽ.001]; adjusted, 3.82 [PϽ.01]), congestive heart failure (unadjusted, 8.45 [P = .02]; adjusted, 3.54 [P = .02]), and community-acquired pneumonia (unadjusted, 14.58 [P =.02]; adjusted, 4.96 [P =.01]). Conclusions: Disparities in clinical process of care measures are largely the result of differences in where minority and nonminority patients seek care. However, disparities in services requiring counseling exist within hospitals after controlling for site of care. Policies to reduce disparities should consider the underlying reasons for the disparities.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend advanced care planning for terminally ill patients with <1 year to live. Few data are available regarding when physicians and their terminally ill patients typically discuss end‐of‐life issues. METHODS: A national survey was conducted of physicians caring for cancer patients about timing of discussions regarding prognosis, do not resuscitate (DNR) status, hospice, and preferred site of death with their terminally ill patients. Logistic regression was used to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with earlier discussions. RESULTS: Among 4074 respondents, 65% would discuss prognosis “now” (defined as patient has 4 months to 6 months to live, asymptomatic). Fewer would discuss DNR status (44%), hospice (26%), or preferred site of death (21%) immediately, with most physicians waiting for patient symptoms or until there are no more treatments to offer. In multivariate analyses, younger physicians more often discussed prognosis, DNR status, hospice, and site of death “now” (all P < .05). Surgeons and oncologists were more likely than noncancer specialists to discuss prognosis “now” (P = .008), but noncancer specialists were more likely than cancer specialists to discuss DNR status, hospice, and preferred site of death “now” (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians report they would not discuss end‐of‐life options with terminally ill patients who are feeling well, instead waiting for symptoms or until there are no more treatments to offer. More research is needed to understand physicians' reasons for timing of discussions and how their propensity to aggressively treat metastatic disease influences timing, as well as how the timing of discussions influences patient and family experiences at the end of life. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.