Patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) face sudden-onset life-threatening disease that requires intensive treatments. Although their early disease trajectory is characterized by significant, toxic side effects, there is limited data describing coping strategies among patients with AML and how these inform patient-reported outcomes. We used cross-sectional secondary data analyses to describe coping in 160 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk AML. We used the Brief COPE, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia at time of AML diagnosis to measure coping strategies, psychological distress and quality of life (QOL), respectively. We used the median split method for distribution of coping domains, and multivariate regression models to assess the relationship between coping and patient-reported outcomes. Participants (median age=64.4 years) were mostly non-Hispanic White (86.3%), male (60.0%), and married (73.8%). Most (51.9%) had high utilization of approach-oriented coping strategies whereas 38.8% had high utilization of avoidant coping strategies. At time of diagnosis, use of approach-oriented coping was associated with less psychological distress (anxiety: β=-0.262, p=0.002; depression symptoms β=-0.311, p<0.001; PTSD symptoms: β=-0.596, p=0.006) and better QOL (β=1.491, p=0.003). Use of avoidant coping was associated with more psychological distress (anxiety: β=0.884, p<0.001; depression symptoms: β=0.697, p<0.001; PTSD symptoms: β=3.048, p<0.001) and worse QOL (β=-5.696, p<0.001). Patients with high-risk AML utilize various approach-oriented and avoidant coping strategies at time of diagnosis. Use of approach-oriented coping strategies was associated with less psychological distress and better QOL, suggesting a possible target for supportive oncology interventions.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionIntegrating palliative care (PC) early in the illness course for patients with serious cancers improves their outcomes and is recommended by national organisations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology. However, monthly visits with PC clinicians from the time of diagnosis can be challenging to implement due to the lack of specialty-trained PC clinicians and resources. Therefore, we developed a stepped care model to triage PC service based on patients’ needs.Methods and analysisWe are conducting a non-blinded, randomised trial to evaluate the non-inferiority of a stepped PC model compared with an early integrated PC model for improving patients’ quality of life (QOL) at 24 weeks (primary outcome). Patients assigned to early integrated PC meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout their illness. Patients assigned to stepped PC have PC visits only at clinically significant points in their illness (eg, cancer progression) unless their QOL decreases, at which time they are ‘stepped up’ and meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout the remainder of their illness. Secondary aims include assessing whether stepped PC is non-inferior to early integrated PC regarding patient-clinician communication about end of life care and length of stay on hospice as well as comparing resource utilisation. Patients are recruited from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The target sample size is 510 patients.Ethics and disseminationThe study is funded by the National Cancer Institute, approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. We will disseminate results through professional society meetings, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to patient organisations.Trial registration numberNCT03337399.

6503 Background: Many patients with advanced cancer maintain misperceptions of their prognosis and are thus unprepared to make difficult decisions regarding their end-of-life (EOL) care. However, studies examining the associations between patients’ perceptions of their prognosis and their EOL outcomes are limited. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis using longitudinal data from a randomized controlled trial of a palliative care intervention for patients with newly diagnosed incurable lung and non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancer. We administered the Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire to assess patients’ perceptions of their prognosis at baseline, week-12, and week-24, using the final assessment closest to death. We used multivariate logistic and linear regression models, adjusting for age, gender, marital status, cancer type, and randomization to the palliative care intervention, to examine the associations among patients’ perceptions of their prognosis with the following EOL care outcomes abstracted from the electronic health record: 1) hospice utilization and length-of-stay (LOS); 2) hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life; 3) receipt of chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life; and 4) location of death. Results: We enrolled 350 patients in the parent trial, of which 80.5% (281/350) died during the study period and were included in this analysis. Overall, 59.4% (164/276) of patients reported that they were terminally ill, and 66.1% (154/233) reported that their cancer was likely curable at the assessment closest to death. In multivariate analyses, patients who reported that their cancer was likely curable were less likely to utilize hospice (OR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.10-0.61, P = 0.002) or die at home (OR = 0.56, 95%CI 0.32-0.98, P = 0.043), and more likely to be hospitalized in the last 30 days of life (OR = 2.28, 95%CI 1.20-4.32, P = 0.011). In contrast, patients’ report that they were terminally ill was only associated with lower likelihood of hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (OR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.29-0.92, P = 0.025). Patients’ perceptions of their prognosis were not associated with hospice LOS or chemotherapy administration in the last 30 days of life. Conclusions: Patients’ perceptions of their prognosis are associated with important EOL outcomes including hospice utilization, hospitalizations at the EOL, and death at home. Interventions are needed to enhance patients’ perceptions of their prognosis in order to optimize their EOL care.