Wolf, Steven

87 Background: The increasing demand for specialist palliative care (PC) in cancer care requires an available and responsive clinical workforce. But as the volume of work expands, PC providers face an increased risk of burnout, characterized by depersonalization and work-related emotional exhaustion. The prevalence and predictors of burnout among PC providers is poorly understood. Methods: Members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (e.g. advanced practice provider, registered nurses, chaplains) completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) via electronic survey in the second half of 2013; respondents were recruited via e-mail, blog and Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets. The MBI determine burnout severity across two domains, Emotional Exhaustion (EE) and Depersonalization (DP). Severity is reported as “low”, “moderate”, or “high”; “high” is consistent with burnout. Demographic and work-related variables associated with burnout in other studies were determined via stepwise logistic regression. Results: We received surveys from 1,241 clinicians. We estimated a response rate of 30%. 68% of respondents were physicians. Most respondents were over age 50 (57%), female (65%), were married or partnered (82%) and had worked in the field for less than 10 years (67%). 42% took overnight call regularly, 30% reported working 50 hours per week or more, and 57% had at least 4 colleagues. Regarding burnout, 24% reported high DP, 59% reported high EE, and 62% of reported high burnout symptoms on either EE or DP scales. In logistic regression, younger physicians, those working more than 50 hours per work, and those with fewer colleagues within their practice were at greatest risk of burnout (p<0.02). Conclusions: PC clinicians report a burnout rate of 62%. Even with the limitations of our methods and potentially biased sampling, this prevalence is remarkable and higher than data reported in medical oncology (45%). Burnout severity is associated with working in isolation and working longer hours. Further studies on how burnout affects sustainability of the PC workforce are needed, especially since this workforce is so critical to the provision of high quality cancer care.

617 Background: Over the past decade, seven agents were approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) leading to a rapidly evolving clinical landscape. Clinical trials addressing treatment efficacy, sequencing, and other questions may continue to impact management decisions. Furthermore, our prior retrospective experience indicates a significant proportion of pts may not receive systemic therapy in the first year after diagnosis with metastatic disease. This analysis describes contemporary patterns of care in the first 109 real world pts enrolled in a multicenter, prospective, observational registry. Methods: MaRCC Registry will enroll 500 pts from up to 60 US academic (ACAD) and community (COMM) sites with ~2 years of recruitment and ≥ 3 years of follow-up. Key inclusion criteria are age ≥ 18 years and diagnosis of mRCC with no prior systemic therapy (STx) for mRCC at study entry. Pts currently not on STx but who are being observed are permitted. Key endpoints include descriptive characteristics of treatments (e.g. treatment agents, sequence, duration, reasons for therapy choice and discontinuation), treatment effectiveness (e.g. overall response rate, progression free survival, overall survival), quality of life (PROs), medication adherence, and health resource utilization. Results: At data cutoff, 105 pts have been accrued with known STx status; median age 64 (Q1-3 range, 56-70); 66% male; 75% ACAD; 87% clear cell histology; and 31% stage IV at diagnosis. Initial management strategies are shown in the table. The initial management decision after accrual was to defer systemic therapy (Def STx) in 40% (N=44). In ACAD and COMM sites, Def STx percentages were 38% and 48% respectively. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were not notably different between Def STx pts and those treated with STx. Conclusions: In our prospective registry, we have identified a large percentage of pts who initially received Def STx. In the context of contemporary pts undergoing investigational and standard of care STx, we will describe the management and outcomes of the Def STx population. [Table: see text]

563 Background: Clinical trials mRCC pts are different from real world pts, resulting in bias in the literature. The MaRCC Registry is designed to survey questions not asked in tri als, such as why physicians make certain management decisions. This analysis describes reasons for physician treatment (tx) selection in the first 109 real world pts enrolled in a multicenter, prospective, observational registry. Methods: MaRCC Registry will enroll 500 pts from up to 60 US academic (ACAD) and community (COMM) sites with ~2 years of recruitment and ≥ 3 years of follow-up. Key inclusion criteria are age ≥ 18 years and diagnosis of mRCC with no prior systemic therapy (STx) for mRCC at study entry. Pts currently not on STx but who are being observed are permitted. Key endpoints include descriptive characteristics of txs, tx and patient outcomes, medication adherence, and health resource utilization. Results: At data cutoff, 105 pts have been accrued with known STx status; median age 64 (Q1-3 range, 56-70); 66% male; 75% ACAD; 87% clear cell histology; and 31% stage IV at diagnosis. Initial management decision was: 40% deferred systemic therapy (DSTx), 22% pazopanib, 18% clinical trial, 10% sunitinib, and 6% other. Among STx pts (N = 61), the most common categories for therapy choice as selected by providers were likelihood of clinical benefit (41%) followed by pt characteristics (30%). Within the clinical benefit category, the most common reason was OS/PFS (31%). Within the pt characteristic category the most common reasons included performance status/frailty (12%) or prognostic factors (12%). Common reasons for DSTx pts (N = 44) were active surveillance (AS) with disease present (39%), AS without disease present following a procedure (11%), or local therapy (7%). ACAD sites had higher percentages of pts with DSTx undergoing AS with disease present and local therapy. Conclusions: This is the first report describing factors driving physician decision making in management of mRCC. Management choices are not captured in other prospective or retrospective studies. Early experience suggests that clinical benefit and pt characteristics were common reasons for initial STx. Side effect profile rarely determined initial STx selection.

Context: Differences among patient populations that present to consultative palliative care are not known. Such an appreciation would inform health-care delivery tailored to unique populations. Objectives: We aimed to compare characteristics and palliative care needs of African Americans (AAs) and whites during initial palliative care consultation. Methods: We analyzed patient-reported, clinician-entered clinical encounter data from a large, multisite community-based, nonhospice palliative care collaborative. We included first specialty palliative care consultations from January 1, 2014, to July 2, 2015, across 15 sites within the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance registry. Demographics, disease, performance status, advance care planning, and symptom prevalence/severity were compared. Results: Of 775 patients, 12.9% (N = 100) were AA. African Americans were younger (63 vs 75.4 years, P < .0001). A larger proportion of AAs had a diagnosis of cancer (45.0% vs 36.3%, P = .09) and in the hospital (71% vs 61.8%, P = .07). African Americans were more likely to have a Palliative Performance Score of 0 to 30 (35.6% vs 23.7%, P = .049). Around 50% in both racial groups were full code; slightly more than 40% had an advance directive. Nearly two-thirds in both racial groups reported 3 or more symptoms of any severity; one-third reported 3 or more moderate or severe symptoms. A larger proportion of Africans than whites reported pain of any severity (66.0% vs 56.1%, P = .06). Conclusion: All patients present to palliative care consultations with significant symptom and advance care planning needs. Further research is needed to identify how to deliver palliative care: earlier, in noncancer conditions, and improve pain management in AA populations.