Factors Related to Specialized Palliative Care Use and Aggressive Care at End of Life in Japanese Patients With Advanced Solid Cancers: A Cohort Study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-398055/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Factors Related to Specialized Palliative Care Use and Aggressive Care at End of Life in Japanese Patients With Advanced Solid Cancers: A Cohort Study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-398055/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose:

This study aimed to identify factors associated with specialized palliative care (SPC) use and aggressive care at the end of life (EOL) among Japanese patients with advanced cancer.

Methods:

This single-center, follow-up cohort study involved patients with advanced cancer who received chemotherapy at Tohoku University Hospital. Patients were surveyed at enrollment, and we followed clinical events for 5 years from enrollment in the study. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify independent factors related to SPC use and chemotherapy in the last month before death.

Results:

We analyzed a total of 135 patients enrolled between January 2015 and January 2016. No patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, and few received resuscitation or ventilation. We identified no factors significantly associated with SPC use. Meanwhile, younger age (20–59 years, odds ratio [OR] 4.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30–12.91; p=0.02) and no receipt of SPC (OR 4.32; 95% CI 1.07–17.37; p=0.04) were associated with chemotherapy in the last month before death.

Conclusion:

Younger age and a lack of SPC were associated with chemotherapy at the EOL in patients with advanced cancer in Japan. These findings suggest that Japanese patients with advanced cancer may benefit from access to SPC.

Cancer Biology

Oncology

Perception

Advanced cancer

Chemotherapy

Aggressive care

End-of-life

Several studies have demonstrated that patients with advanced cancer receive aggressive care at the end of life (EOL) [1–4]. Aggressive care at the EOL can decrease quality of life (QOL) and satisfaction with the care received, and may prolong bereavement [5–7]. Patients who are younger, male, married, of lower socio-economic status, or have hematologic malignancies or a higher level of comorbidity have been found to be more likely to receive aggressive care at the EOL [1, 2, 8, 9]. Meanwhile, patients who have had an EOL discussion and patients who received community health service have been reported to be less likely to receive aggressive care at the EOL [5, 8, 10]. However, patients’ misperception of their prognosis or of the purpose of chemotherapy may influence how aggressively they are treated at the EOL [11]. Given the literature regarding the negative effects of overly aggressive care at the EOL, some measures have been endorsed as indicators of low-quality end-of-life care: receipt of chemotherapy, repeated hospitalizations, emergency department visits or intensive care unit (ICU) admission within the last month of life, and late or absent hospice admissions [12–13].

Studies have shown that early enrollment in a hospice helps reduce aggressive care, improves patient quality of life, and improves the quality of end-of-life care [14–17]. Temel et al. reported early palliative care to be associated with less-aggressive end-of-life care among patients with metastatic lung cancer [18]. In addition, Michael et al. reported that their findings reaffirm the benefits of early palliative care for pancreatic cancer patients in avoiding inappropriate care toward the EOL [19]. Several studies have reported that palliative care consultation and a higher intensity of palliative care were associated with less-aggressive care in patients with advanced cancer at the EOL [20, 21].

To date, however, no research in Japan has examined what characteristics among advanced cancer patients may be associated with EOL care, including palliative care use and aggressive care. Identifying these factors is important to improve patients’ and caregivers’ QOL at the EOL. Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors associated with palliative care use and aggressive care at the EOL among Japanese patients with advanced cancer.

Study design

This single-center cohort study was a follow-up to a previously reported cross-sectional study in Japan [22, 23]. We enrolled patients with advanced cancer who received chemotherapy at Tohoku University Hospital between January 2015 and January 2016. We followed patients for 5 years from enrollment.

Patients of age ≥ 20 years with unresectable/recurrent solid cancer and failure of first-line chemotherapy were included in the study. The following were criteria for exclusion: (1) patients who declined to provide written informed consent, (2) patients who exhibited cognitive impairment, (3) patients who had no image-confirmed lesion, (4) patients who had not been informed about their disease, (5) patients who could not understand the Japanese questionnaire, (6) patients who did not have sufficient strength to complete the questionnaire, or (7) patients who were deemed ineligible by the primary responsible physician. Eligibility was initially evaluated via the medical record. The primary responsible physician, defined as the medical oncologist who most frequently examined the patient, was then asked to confirm eligibility and to provide permission for the researcher to contact the patient.

Both inpatients and outpatients were eligible for enrollment. The limited number of available researchers necessitated that we enroll patients by convenience to some extent; enrollment was occasionally skipped when several eligible patients were identified on the same day, or not performed for other practical reasons. Informed consent from patients was obtained by the primary responsible physician.

Patient survey

Patients were surveyed using questionnaires developed for the study. Enrolled patients were asked to complete and return the questionnaires to our office. To survey patients’ perception of their illness, we asked the following items: their preference of treatment (prolong life or palliation), their hopes for participating in a clinical trial, whether they had an EOL discussion, their awareness of their terminal status (curable or incurable), their hope to know prognosis, their probability of cure (possible or impossible), and their characterization of their communication with the primary responsible physician. EOL discussion was defined as a discussion about palliative care or Do Not Resuscitate orders (DNR). We used the commonly accepted definition of palliative care [24, 25], specifically as (1) an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness; (2) the treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual; and (3) the care provided at a patient’s own home, palliative care units or hospices. Regarding communication with the primary responsible physician, we calculated a communication summary score [26] by asking patients the following five questions: “How often did your doctors listen carefully to you?”, “How often did your doctors explain things in a way you could understand?”, “How often did your doctors give you as much information as you wanted about your cancer treatments, including potential benefits and side effects?”, “How often did your doctors encourage you to ask all the cancer-related questions you had?” and “How often did your doctors treat you with courtesy and respect?”. The response options for each question were “Always (score 3)”, “Usually (score 2)”, “Sometimes (score 1)” and “Never (score 0)”. We then calculated total scores, with 0 being the worst possible total score and 15 being the best.

In addition to the questionnaire data, we obtained baseline patient characteristics including age, sex, primary cancer site, number of chemotherapy regimens prior to enrollment, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, marital status, income, and number of family members living at home from medical records. Follow-up medical record review was used to identify the medical care patients received in the last month before death among those who died, including specialized palliative care (SPC), ICU admission, and use of chemotherapy, resuscitation, ventilation or feeding tube. SPC was defined as use of an outpatient palliative care clinic, inpatient palliative care team, or palliative care unit (PCU) [15, 27–28]. On the basis of previous studies [2, 12, 29], we defined aggressive care as chemotherapy, ICU admission, resuscitation, ventilation, or feeding tube in the last month before death. Although previous studies have defined unscheduled visits as aggressive care, we excluded unscheduled visits from our definition of aggressive care because a previous Japanese study showed that bereaved families did not rate unscheduled visits as an indicator of poor care [30].

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses was performed with JMP version 14 for Windows (SAS, Cary, NC, USA). First, we performed descriptive analyses to summarize baseline characteristics. Second, we performed Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables, Cochran–Armitage trend tests for ordinal variables and Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables to identify the factors related to SPC and aggressive care. Third, we used those variables with p values of <0.2 in the univariate analysis for final model fitting with multivariate logistic regression to identify the factors related to SPC and aggressive care. We regarded p values of <0.05 as statistically significant in the final model.

Ethics

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethical guidelines for medical and health research involving human subjects presented by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan. The primary responsible physicians obtained written informed consent from all patients. The independent ethics committee of the Tohoku University School of Medicine approved this study (approval no. 2014-1-085).

Patient characteristics

We enrolled 157 patients with advanced cancer who were treated at Tohoku University Hospital between January 2015 and January 2016 (Table 1). After a follow-up period of 5 years, 135 patients had died, 10 patients were alive, and 12 patients were lost to follow-up. Thus, we analyzed findings for 135 patients (Figure 1). The mean patient age was 62.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 12.3), and 84 patients (62.2%) were male. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal (51.9%), hepatobiliary pancreatic (11.1%) and sarcoma (10.4%). In total, 75.6% of the patients were treated with a first- or second-line regimen at enrollment.

Medical care received in the last month before death

Table 2 shows medical care received in the last month before death. A minority of patients received chemotherapy (14.8%), resuscitation (3.7%), or ventilation (2.2%). No patients were admitted to an ICU, and none received a feeding tube. Of the 135 patients, 39.3% received SPC, and 73.6% of these patients were admitted to a PCU. The mean duration of PCU treatment was 23.7 days (SD 20.0 days; range 2–108 days).

Factors associated with aggressive care and SPC at the end of life

Table 3 shows the results of the univariate analyses. Considering the small number of patients who received resuscitation and ventilation (Table 2), we analyzed only SPC and chemotherapy. Receipt of SPC was associated with a higher number of chemotherapy regimens at enrollment (≥3, p=0.11) and awareness of terminal illness (p=0.07), although without reaching statistical significance. Factors related to use of chemotherapy in the last month of life included younger age (20–59 years, p<0.01) as well as nonsignificant associations with a lack of desire to know prognosis (p=0.16) and no receipt of SPC (p=0.08). In the multivariate analysis, SPC was not significantly associated with any measured factors. Chemotherapy use in the last month of life was associated with younger age (20–59 years, OR 4.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30–12.91; p=0.02) and a lack of receipt of SPC (OR 4.32; 95% CI 1.07–17.37; p=0.04).

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with aggressive care at the EOL and palliative care consultation among Japanese patients with advanced cancer. Our results showed that younger age and a lack of receipt of SPC were related to chemotherapy at the EOL. We were unable to identify factors that were significantly related to SPC reception.

Regarding aggressive care at the EOL, we showed that no patients were admitted to the ICU, and few received resuscitation or ventilation. In Japan, patients who are no longer receiving chemotherapy are rarely admitted to the ICU. Instead, when chemotherapy is discontinued due to progressive disease, physicians usually also put a DNR order in place, and patients are admitted to the general ward only. However, in other countries such as the US, patients may be admitted to the ICU on the basis of a need for intervention, even with advanced cancer. This difference of background may influence the prevalence of aggressive care at the EOL, especially ICU admissions, as well as use of resuscitation, ventilation and feeding tube. In fact, for the patients in this study, all such intensive care was provided in the emergency room, and no patient received such intensive care in the ICU itself.

We did not find any factors statistically associated with receipt of SPC. SPC has increased in Japan in recent years, and patients with advanced cancer have had easier access to SPC since the National Cancer Control Act was implemented in Japan in 2007. In addition, a basic education program, the Palliative Care Emphasis Program on Symptom Management and Assessment for Continuous Medical Education (the PEACE program), has been developed for all physicians engaged in cancer care to help support primary palliative care [31, 32]. Through the PEACE program, oncologists learn how to access SPC and when to consult with SPC. While just under 40% of patients in our study accessed SPC, we did not find any disparities in access.

Our results showed that patients who received SPC were less likely to receive chemotherapy at the EOL. As prior studies have reported, use of hospice and palliative care consultation are associated with less-aggressive care at the EOL [14–23]. Our results showed that among 53 patients who received SPC, 39 patients (73.6%) were admitted to the PCU. All of these patients then died in the PCU, typically without aggressive care. A previous study reported that patients with advanced cancer who had earlier discussions about EOL care were less likely to receive aggressive care at the EOL [10]. Additionally, it has been shown that patients with advanced cancer who had EOL discussions with their physicians received less-aggressive EOL care that was more consistent with their stated preferences [5, 33]. The other 14 patients who received SPC without an admission to PCU received “early palliative care”, and they also might have had opportunities to discuss EOL care with palliative care physicians.

The association between age and aggressive care has been reported in several studies. Among both Western and Asian countries, younger cancer patients receive considerably more aggressive care at the EOL than their older counterparts [34–36]. Some studies have shown that preferences for aggressive care at the EOL decrease with increasing age [5, 33, 37–39]. In addition to patient preferences, physician factors may have influenced the current results. Death at younger ages may be recognized across cultures as “premature death,” whereas death in older age may be perceived as “life’s natural course” [40–41]. Therefore, physicians may strive to save younger patients and provide aggressive care at the EOL regardless of patients’ preferences [42–43]. Hence, our results do not conflict with previous studies, although we do not know whether this is driven by patient or physician preferences.

This study has several limitations. First, this study was conducted at a single hospital in Japan, which may affect the generalizability of our results to other centers. Although our hospital can provide SPC through an outpatient palliative care clinic, an inpatient palliative care team and a PCU, other hospitals may have more limited resources for provision of SPC. Second, the lack of data from physicians may have limited our findings. We examined patient characteristics associated with medical care provided at the EOL, but physicians’ preferences and attitudes may have had an influence on the selection of EOL care. Third, patients’ perceptions and preferences might change at the EOL. Data were obtained from patients whose first-line chemotherapy had been unsuccessful. The results would likely have been different if the data had been obtained at second-line or later chemotherapy, or after termination of chemotherapy. Fourth, because we asked patients about previous communication, recall bias may have affected their responses. Fifth, our use of a convenient sample, along with the fact that physicians were asked to approach their own patients about participating in the study, may have introduced selection bias.

Younger age and lack of receipt of SPC were associated with more aggressive use of chemotherapy at the EOL in patients with advanced cancer in Japan. We found no disparities in access to SPC among Japanese patients with advanced cancer. Further study is needed to investigate the factors related to aggressive care at the EOL in diverse oncology practice settings.

Acknowledgments:

We thank Inga T. Lennes, MD, MPH, at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA for assisting with the backtranslation of the questions used in this survey. We are also deeply grateful to Mrs. Yamagishi, RN, of the Department of Palliative Nursing, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Miyagi, Japan for participant recruitment and data collection. We thank John Daniel from Edanz Group (https://en-author-services.edanz.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported in part by a JSPS KAKENHI [Grant Numbers 15K15161,18K10266].

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Mitsunori Miyashita, upon reasonable request. All authors agree to provide data to the journal for review if needed.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Author contributions

(I) Conception and design: Yusuke Hiratsuka, Takayuki Oishi, Mitsunori Miyashita, Tatsuya Morita

(II) Administrative support: Mitsunori Miyashita, Tatsuya Morita, Jennifer W. Mack

(III) Provision of study materials or patients: Takayuki Oishi, Yuko Sato, Masahiro Takahashi, Keigo Komine, Ken Saijo, Chikashi Ishioka, Akira Inoue

(IV) Collection and assembly of data: Takayuki Oishi, Yuko Sato, Masahiro Takahashi, Keigo Komine, Ken Saijo, Chikashi Ishioka, Akira Inoue

(V) Data analysis and interpretation: Yusuke Hiratsuka, Mitsunori Miyashita

(VI) Manuscript writing: All authors

(VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors

Ethics approval

This study obtained was approved by the the independent ethics committee of Tohoku University School of Medicine (approval no. 2016-1-689).

Consent to participate

In accordance with the ethical guidelines for human research of the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare in Japan, the primary responsible physicians obtained written informed consent from all patients.

Consent for publication

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the article.

Earle CC, Landrum MB, Souza JM, et al (2008) Aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life: is it a quality-of-care issue? J Clin Oncol 26:3860-3866.
Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, et al (2004) Trends in the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. J Clin Oncol 22:315-321.
Wright AA, Hartfield LA, Earle CC, et al (2014) End-of-life for older patients with ovarian cancer is intensive despite high rates of hospice use. J Clin Oncol 32:3534-3539.
Abedini NC, Hechtman RK, Singh AD, et al (2019) Interventions to reduce aggressive care at end of life among patients with cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 20:e627-e636.
Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, et al (2008) Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA 300:1665-1673.

Wright AA, Zhang B, Keating NL, et al (2014) Associations between palliative chemotherapy and adult cancer patients' end of life care and place of death: prospective cohort study. BMJ 348:g1219.
Wright AA, Keating NL, Ayanian JZ, et al (2016) Family perspectives on aggressive cancer care near the end of life. JAMA 315:284-292.
Henson LA, Gomes B, Koffman J, et al (2016) Factors associated with aggressive end of life cancer care. Support Care Cancer 24:1079-1089.
Henson LA, Higginson IJ, Gao W, et al (2018) What factors influence emergency department visits by patients with cancer at the end of life? Analysis of a 124,030 patient cohort. Palliat Med 32:426-438.
Mack JW, Cronin A, Keating NL, et al (2012) Associations between end-of-life discussion characteristics and care received near death: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 30:4387-4395.
Mack JW, Cook EF, Wolfe J, et al (2007) Understanding of prognosis among parents of children with cancer: parental optimism and the parent-physician interaction. J Clin Oncol 25:1357-1362.
Earle CC, Park ER, Lai B, et al (2003) Identifying potential indicators of the quality of end-of-life cancer care from administrative data. J Clin Oncol 21:1133-1138.
Campion FX, Larson LR, Kadlubek PJ, et al (2011) Advancing performance measurement in oncology: quality oncology practice initiative participation and quality outcomes. J Oncol Pract 7:31s-35s.
Obermeyer Z, Makar M, Abujaber S, et al (2014) Association between the Medicare hospice benefit and health care utilization and costs for patients with poor-prognosis cancer. JAMA 312:1888-1896.
Gawande A (2016) Quantity and quality of life: Duties of care in life-limiting illness. JAMA 315:267-269.
Rubin R (2015) Improving the quality of life at the end of life. JAMA 313:2110-2112.
Greer JA, Pirl WF, Jackson VA, et al (2012) Effect of early palliative care on chemotherapy use and end-of-life care in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:394-400.
Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al (2010) Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 363:733-742.
Michael N, Beale G, O’Callaghan C, et al (2019) Timing of palliative care referral and aggressive cancer care toward the end-of-life in pancreatic cancer: a retrospective, single-center observational study. BMC Palliat Care 18:13.
Jang RW, Krzyzanowska MK, Zimmermann C, et al (2015) Palliative care and the aggressiveness of end-of-life care in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 107:dju424.

Triplett DP, LeBrett WG, Bryant AK, et al (2017) Effect of palliative care on aggressiveness of end-of-life care among patients with advanced cancer. J Oncol Pract 13:e760-e769.
Oishi T, Sato K, Morita T, et al (2018) Patient perceptions of curability and physician-reported disclosures of incurability in Japanese patients with unresectable/recurrent cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Jpn J Clin Oncol 48:913-919.
Hiratsuka Y, Oishi T, Miyashita M, et al (2021) Patients' understanding of communication about palliative care and health condition in Japanese patients with unresectable or recurrent cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Palliat Med. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-2045 [Epub ahead of print].
World Health Organization [Internet]. The definition of palliative care; c2002 [cited 2021 March 1]. Available from: http://www.who.int/cancer/palliative/definition/en/
Vitillo R, Puchalski C (2014) World Health Organization authorities promote greater attention and action on palliative care. J Palliat Med 17:988-989.
Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Arora NK, et al (2010) Patients' experiences with care for lung cancer and colorectal cancer: findings from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. J Clin Oncol 28:4154-4161.
Hui D, Mori M, Watanabe SM, et al (2016) Referral criteria for outpatient specialty palliative cancer care: An international consensus. Lancet Oncol 17:e552-e559.
Hui D, Meng YC, Bruera S, et al (2016) Referral criteria for outpatient palliative cancer care: A systematic review. Oncologist 21:895-901.
Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, et al (2005) Evaluating claims-based indicators of the intensity of end-of-life cancer care. Int J Qual Health Care 17:505-509.
Miyashita M, Morita T, Ichikawa T, et al (2009) Quality Indicators of End-of-Life Cancer Care from the Bereaved Family Members’ Perspective in Japan. J Pain Symptom Manage 37:1019-1026.
Yamamoto R, Kizawa Y, Nakazawa Y, et al (2015) Outcome evaluation of the palliative care emphasis program on symptom management and assessment for continuous medical education: Nationwide physician education project for primary palliative care in japan. J Palliat Med 18:45-49.
Nakazawa Y, Yamamoto R, Kato M, et al (2018) Improved knowledge of and difficulties in palliative care among physicians during 2008 and 2015 in Japan: Association with a nationwide palliative care education program. Cancer 124:626-635.
Mack JW, Weeks JC, Wright AA, et al (2010) End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences. J Clin Oncol 28:1203-1208.
Frost DW, Cook DJ, Heyland DK, et al (2011) Patient and healthcare professional factors influencing end-of-life decision-making during critical illness: a systematic review Crit Care Med 39:1174-1189.
Rietjens JA, Deschepper R, Pasman R, et al (2012) Medical end-of-life decisions: does its use differ in vulnerable patient groups? A systematic review and meta-analysis Soc Sci Med 74:1282-1287.
Tang ST, Liu TW, Shyu YI, et al (2012) Impact of age on end-of-life care for adult Taiwanese cancer decedents, 2001-2006. Palliat Med 26:80-88.
Maida V, Peck J, Ennis M, et al (2010) Preferences for active and aggressive intervention among patients with advanced cancer. BMC Cancer 10:592.
Burt J, Plant H, Omar R, et al (2010) Equity of use of specialist palliative care by age: cross-sectional study of lung cancer patients. 24:641-650.
Prigerson HG and Maciejewski PK (2012) Dartmouth Atlas: putting end-of-life care on the map but missing psychosocial detail J Support Oncol 10:25-28.
Surbone A, Kagawa-Singer M, Terret C, et al (2007) The illness trajectory of elderly cancer patients across cultures: SIOG position paper. Ann Oncol 18:633-638.
Yun RJ and Lachman ME (2006) Perceptions of aging in two cultures: Korean and American views on old age. J Cross Cult Gerontol 21:55-70.
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Lacey HP, et al (2008) The potential impact of decision role and patient age on end-of-life treatment decision making. J Med Ethics 34:327-331.
Yun YH, You CH, Lee JS, et al (2006) Understanding disparities in aggressive care preferences between patients with terminal illness and their family members. J Pain Symptom Manage 31:513-521.

Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics (n= 135)

Characteristics

n (%)

Age, years (mean ± SD)

62.9 ± 12.3

Sex

Male

Female

84 (62.2)

51 (37.8)

Primary cancer site

Gastrointestinal

Lung

Hepatobiliary pancreatic

Sarcoma

Breast

Head and neck

Others

70 (51.9)

11 (8.1)

15 (11.1)

14 (10.4)

5 (3.7)

6 (4.4)

14 (10.3)

Number of chemotherapy regimens at enrollment

≥3

4 (3.0)

98 (72.6)

33 (24.4)

ECOG PS

Unknown

31 (23.0)

56 (41.5)

14 (10.4)

4 (3.0)

30 (22.2)

Marital status

Married or living with partner

Unmarried

Unknown

82 (60.7)

21 (15.6)

32 (23.7)

Income (Million yen)

< 2.0

2.0-3.9

4.0-5.9

6.0-7.9

8.0-9.9

≥ 10.0

unknown

13 (9.6)

35 (25.9)

24 (17.8)

10 (7.4)

6 (4.4)

41 (30.4)

Living with family

Yes

Unknown

87 (64.4)

17 (12.6)

31 (23.0)

Median survival time [range]*

256 [16-1731]

Abbreviations: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; SD, standard deviation

*missing value=12

Table 2. Medical care received in the last one month before death (n=135)

Medical care	n (%)
Chemotherapy	20 (14.8)
Specialized palliative care	53 (39.3)
Palliative care unit used	39 (28.9)
Intensive care unit admission	0
Resuscitation	5 (3.7)
Ventilation	3 (2.2)
Feeding tube	0

Table 3. The results of univariate analysis to identify associations between advanced cancer patients’ perception and aggressive care in end-of-life

a) Specialized palliative care used

Variables

Specialized palliative care

p value

Yes

Age

20-59

≥60

19 (42.2)

34 (37.8)

26 (57.8)

56 (62.2)

0.62

Sex

Male

Female

30 (35.7)

23 (45.1)

54 (64.3)

28 (54.9)

0.36

Marital status

Married or living with partner

Unmarried

32 (39.0)

10 (47.6)

50 (61.0)

11 (52.4)

0.62

Income

<2.0

2.0-3.9

3.9-5.9

≥6.0

5 (38.5)

12 (54.6)

13 (37.1)

7 (29.2)

8 (61.5)

10 (45.5)

22 (62.9)

17 (70.8)

0.24

Number of chemotherapy regimens at enrollment

≤2

≥3

36 (35.3)

17 (51.5)

66 (64.7)

16 (48.5)

0.11

Preference of treatment

Prolong life

Palliation

20 (47.6)

21 (36.2)

22 (52.4)

37 (63.8)

0.30

Hopes for participating in a clinical trial

Yes

28 (37.8)

11 (42.3)

46 (62.2)

15 (57.7)

0.82

End-of-life discussion

Yes

18 (39.1)

23 (40.4)

28 (60.9)

34 (59.7)

1.00

Awareness of terminal status

Curable

Incurable

7 (25.0)

16 (48.5)

21 (75.0)

17 (51.5)

0.07

Hope to know prognosis

Yes

10 (31.3)

30 (42.9)

22 (68.8)

40 (57.1)

0.28

Probability of cure

Possible

Impossible

12 (33.3)

17 (43.6)

24 (66.7)

22 (56.4)

0.48

Communication score

7.9±2.9

7.6±3.1

0.49

b) Chemotherapy

Variables

Chemotherapy

p value

Yes

Age

20-59

≥60

12 (26.7)

8 (8.9)

33 (73.3)

82 (91.1)

<.0.01

Sex

Male

Female

13 (15.5)

7 (13.7)

71 (84.5)

44 (86.3)

1.00

Marital status

Married or living with partner

Unmarried

15 (18.3)

2 (9.5)

67 (81.7)

19 (90.5)

0.51

Income

<2.0

2.0-3.9

3.9-5.9

≥6.0

3 (23.1)

5 (22.7)

4 (11.4)

4 (16.7)

10 (76.9)

17 (77.3)

31 (88.6)

20 (83.3)

0.42

Number of chemotherapy regimens at enrollment

≤2

≥3

16 (15.7)

4 (12.1)

86 (84.3)

29 (87.9)

0.78

Preference of treatment

Prolong life

Palliation

9 (21.4)

8 (13.8)

33 (78.6)

50 (86.2)

0.42

Hopes for participating in a clinical trial

Yes

13 (17.6)

4 (15.4)

61 (82.4)

22 (84.6)

1.00

End-of-life discussion

Yes

6 (13.0)

11 (19.3)

40 (87.0)

46 (80.7)

0.44

Awareness of terminal status

Curable

Incurable

5 (17.9)

2 (6.1)

23 (82.1)

31 (93.9)

0.23

Hope to know prognosis

Yes

8 (25.0)

9 (12.9)

24 (75.0)

61 (87.1)

0.16

Probability of cure

Possible

Impossible

4 (11.1)

4 (10.3)

32 (88.9)

35 (89.7)

1.00

Communication score

7.6±2.3

7.7±3.1

0.64

Specialized palliative care

Yes

16 (19.5)

4 (7.6)

66 (80.5)

49 (92.5)

0.08

Table 4. The results of multivariate analysis to identify associations between advanced cancer patients’ perception and aggressive care in end-of-life

a) Specialized palliative care

Variables

Odds ratio

95% confidence interval

p value

Number of chemotherapy regimens at enrollment

≥3

≤2

1.27

Reference

0.40-4.07

0.68

Awareness of terminal status

incurable

curable

2.73

Reference

0.90-8.25

0.08

b) Chemotherapy

Variables

Odds ratio

95% confidence interval

p value

Age

20-59

≥60

4.10

Reference

1.30-12.91

0.02

Hope to know prognosis

not want

want

1.99

Reference

0.64-6.18

0.24

Specialized palliative care

yes

4.32

Reference

1.07-17.37

0.04

STROBEchecklist.docx

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
09 May, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
04 May, 2021
Editor invited by journal
22 Apr, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
04 Apr, 2021
First submitted to journal
01 Apr, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Factors Related to Specialized Palliative Care Use and Aggressive Care at End of Life in Japanese Patients With Advanced Solid Cancers: A Cohort Study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1