Fitch, Tom R.

32 Background: The link between patient concerns and clinical systems delivery is often suboptimal. We developed a case management system for palliative care which transforms the patient’s greatest concerns into actionable clinical pathways. Methods: The system collects patients’ single greatest and second greatest concern plus Quality of Life (QOL) data (pain, fatigue and overall QOL single-items scored 0-10 with 10 representing worst pain/fatigue, or best QOL) and produces a report to guide the physician and patient. The system presents ten “buttons” in a xylophone-like grid: Personal Relationships, Monitoring Health, Emotional Health, Money, Health Behaviors, Medication Troubles, Care Access, Work Worries, Physical Health and Care Planning. We performed a quality improvement study at Mayo Clinic sites. Results: 409 patients participated in at least one survey from 11/04/2015 to 9/22/2016 (620 total surveys). The most common Main Concern was Physical Health 265/620 (43%) followed by Monitoring Health (17%), Medication (8%), and Emotional Health, Money, and Health Behaviors (7% each), Personal Relationships (6%). Future Care Planning, Work, and Care Access/Coordination were rarely chosen ( < 5%). The most common Second greatest concern was Health Behaviors 73/409 (18%) followed by Physical Health (17%). 93/122 (67%) patients changed their greatest concern from baseline to subsequent visits. The mean QOL, fatigue and pain at baseline were 4.8, 6.0 and 4.8 respectively, indicating substantial clinically significant deficits. Post baseline mean scores improved by a maximum of 0.8, 1.1, and 0.9 points respectively, representing clinically meaningful effects. On average it took 8 minutes for patients to use the system. Conclusions: The system was quick and easy to utilize. The personal impact concerns (physical/emotional health, medications) were most often cited as the greatest concern, while care issues were de-emphasized by patients. Patients and physicians praised the system for making visits more efficient and raising issues that otherwise might not have been addressed. This system has the potential to improve patient well-being and clinical outcomes, as well as to reduce burden on clinicians and optimize case management activities.

61 Background: Patients with cancer often have complex symptoms and morbidity that prompt frequent Emergency Department visits. The length of stay in the ED for cancer patients exceeds that of patients without cancer. Patients with cancer are also more likely to be admitted, but are often discharged within 72h. Protracted ED visits, extensive investigations, and the burdens of even a short admission may be distressing and may not be aligned with patients’ care goals and preferences. Furthermore, the healthcare resources dedicated to these patients is considerable and has economic implications. We recently established a Supportive Care Infusion Center (SCIC), an on-campus outpatient unit where patients can receive treatments for symptom relief and comfort; they are assured integrated palliative care with routine oncologic care. We believe there is a subset of cancer patients who can be safely transferred from the ED to the SCIC for appropriate care. Methods: We are retrospectively evaluating cancer patients admitted through the ED to validate clinical parameters likely to lead to admission, and also identify any differences between patients admitted for <72h vs >72h. Patients are analyzed based on symptoms, cancer type, prior cancer therapies, performance status, comorbidities, and presence/absence of advance care planning as well as previous contact with Palliative Care. Data are also being gathered on patient outcomes, including mortality within 60d of admission. Results: Previously established indicators predictive of admission included shortness of breath and SIRS criteria, which our current review validates. We also observe that patients admitted for >72h have greater symptom burden and comorbidities and have received multiple lines of therapy. They also less frequently have advance care planning in place. Data analysis is ongoing. Conclusions: There exists a difference between cancer patients admitted >72h and those discharged within 72h. Awareness of these characteristics may lead to improved workflow in the ED. Identifying patients who may be suitable for transfer to an outpatient supportive care unit rather than short-term admission will also facilitate cost-effectiveness. Future direction includes evaluation of outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, and patient-caregiver satisfaction.

PURPOSE: To determine whether dronabinol administered alone or with megestrol acetate was more, less, or equal in efficacy to single-agent megestrol acetate for palliating cancer-associated anorexia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred sixty-nine assessable advanced cancer patients were randomized to (1) oral megestrol acetate 800 mg/d liquid suspension plus placebo, (2) oral dronabinol 2.5 mg twice a day plus placebo, or (3) both agents. Eligible patients acknowledged that loss of appetite or weight was a problem and reported the loss of 5 pounds or more during 2 months and/or a daily intake of less than 20 calories/kg of body weight. RESULTS: Groups were comparable at baseline in age, sex, tumor type, weight loss, and performance status. A greater percentage of megestrol acetate-treated patients reported appetite improvement and weight gain compared with dronabinol-treated patients: 75% versus 49% (P = .0001) for appetite and 11% versus 3% (P = .02) for ≥ 10% baseline weight gain. Combination treatment resulted in no significant differences in appetite or weight compared with megestrol acetate alone. The Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy questionnaire, which emphasizes anorexia-related questions, demonstrated an improvement in quality of life (QOL) among megestrol acetate–treated and combination-treated patients. The single-item Uniscale, a global QOL instrument, found comparable scores. Toxicity was also comparable, with the exception of an increased incidence of impotence among men who received megestrol acetate. CONCLUSION: In the doses and schedules we studied, megestrol acetate provided superior anorexia palliation among advanced cancer patients compared with dronabinol alone. Combination therapy did not appear to confer additional benefit.