Goals of care designations in advanced pancreatic cancer patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 683-683
Author(s):  
Matthew Anaka ◽  
Minji Lee ◽  
Elisa Lim ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Health System ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Goals Of Care

683 Background: Discussion of goals of care (GoC) is a key part of quality care for patients with palliative cancer. Numerous studies have shown that documentation of GoC in this population remains low. In 2014, Alberta Health Services launched a health-system wide initiative to provide patients with physical copies of their GoC designation intended to be available at all health-system interactions. Here we describe rates of GoC documentation in the period surrounding this initiative. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 240 patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with palliative chemotherapy from 2012-2015 in Alberta, Canada. Data were obtained from outpatient electronic medical record documentation and the provincial cancer registry. Results: 63.8% (153/240) of patients had a documented GoC discussion, with 60.4% (145/240) receiving a specific GoC designation. 59.6% (143/240) of patients were referred to palliative care, with 32.5% (78/240) seen by palliative care physician. Of 334 individual GoC discussions documented, 38.6% (129/334) were by medical oncologists, 2.3% (10/334) were by radiation oncologists, 27.2% (91/334) were by palliative care, and 19.2% (64/334) were by other inpatient physicians during hospital admissions. At least 9.6% (32/334) referenced discussions that occurred prior to initial consultation with an oncology physician. Conclusions: The majority of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy had a documented GoC designation during the study period. Providing patients with physical copies of their GoC designation may therefore represent a simple but effective means of increasing GoC documentation in the outpatient oncology setting.

Outcomes and care patterns for advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated in tertiary vs regional/community cancer centres in Northern Alberta.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 163-163
Author(s):  
Matthew Anaka ◽  
Minji Lee ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Jennifer L. Spratlin
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Tertiary Centre ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Care Patterns ◽  
Northern Alberta ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

163 Background: Cancer care in Northern Alberta (Canada) is delivered at a single tertiary cancer centre, and 11 regional and community cancer centres (RCCC). We compared outcomes and care patterns for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC; locally advanced or metastatic) in Northern Alberta treated with palliative chemotherapy at either the tertiary centre or an RCCC. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of APC patients treated with palliative chemotherapy from 2012-2015 in Northern Alberta (Canada). Data were obtained from outpatient medical oncology and palliative care notes and the provincial cancer registry. Survival analysis used a multivariate Cox-regression model. All other tests were Chi-squared/Fisher’s Exact. Results: We identified 106 patients, 90 treated in the tertiary centre, and 16 in a RCCC. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different. There were significant differences in first line chemotherapy regimen use (P = 0.037), with patients treated at RCCC more likely to receive gemcitabine during the study period (68.8% vs 36.6%), and less likely gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (12.5% vs 36.5%) or FOLFIRINOX (18.8% vs 28.7%). Patients treated at RCCC were less likely to see an outpatient palliative care physician (P = 0.020, 6.3% vs 35.6%), or have a documented goals of care designation (P = 0.005, 12.5% vs 52.2%). There was no significant difference in overall survival in a multivariate analysis (median 199 vs 232 days, HR = 1.080, 95% CI 0.594 – 1.966). Conclusions: We found that survival was not different for APC patients treated at the tertiary vs RCCC in Northern Alberta. However there were significant differences in the use of palliative care resources and 1st line chemotherapy regimens, which represent important disparities that should be the focus for future quality improvement.

Goals of care designation associated with improved survival and indicators of quality end-of-life care in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients (pts) undergoing palliative chemotherapy.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11532-11532
Author(s):  
Matthew Anaka ◽  
Jennifer L. Spratlin ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Minji Lee
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Health System ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Goals Of Care

11532 Background: Discussion of goals of care (GoC) is a key part of quality care for pts with palliative cancer. Numerous studies have shown that documentation of GoC in this population remains low. Here we describe changes in GoC documentation and other indicators of quality end-of-life care in PC pts undergoing palliative chemotherapy during a health-system wide initiative to improve advanced care planning (ACP). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 106 pts with locally advanced or metastatic PC treated with palliative chemotherapy from 2012-2015 in Northern Alberta (Canada). In 2014, an initiative was launched to provide pts with hard copies of their GoC designation intended to be available at all health-system interactions. Data were obtained from outpatient medical oncology (MO) and palliative care (PAL) notes and the provincial cancer registry. Survival analysis used a multivariate Cox-regression. All other tests were Chi-squared. Results: 50% (53/106) of pts had a documented GoC discussion, with 45% (48/106) receiving a specific GoC designation. In 2012, 31% (6/19) of pts had a GoC designation, which increased to 61% (20/33) in 2015. Of 84 individual GoC discussions documented, 34% (29/84) were by MO, 62% (52/84) were by PAL, and at least 8% (7/84) referenced prior discussions with a family physician or discussion while admitted to hospital. Pts with a GoC designation had increased median overall survival (287 vs 216 days; HR = 0.62; p = 0.041), and were less likely to receive chemotherapy in the last two weeks of life (p = 0.016). Conclusions: Rates of GoC discussions for PC pts undergoing palliative chemotherapy increased during a health-system wide ACP initiative. Having a GoC designation was associated with greater overall survival and indicators of higher quality end-of-life care.

Early outcomes of irreversible electroporation after stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC): A matched pair analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 410-410
Author(s):  
Emanuel Boyer ◽  
Russell Palm ◽  
Jessica M. Frakes ◽  
Sarah E. Hoffe ◽  
Mokenge Peter Malafa
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Irreversible Electroporation ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Optimal Timing ◽  
Entire Cohort

410 Background: Outcomes remain poor for those diagnosed with unresectable pancreatic cancer. SBRT and IRE have independently demonstrated high rates of local control and minimal toxicity for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Data is limited regarding safety and efficacy in the sequential use of both therapies. Materials and Methods: A single institution retrospective matched cohort analysis was performed for patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with induction chemotherapy and SBRT followed by IRE, compared with patients of the same cohort who did not receive IRE. Patients were paired based on age, tumor stage, GTV D95, CA19-9 prior to SBRT, and chemotherapy type to mitigate selection bias in surgical candidates. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), freedom from local failure (FFLF) and freedom from distant failure (FFDF) were the primary outcomes compared via Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank methods. Results: From July, 2014 to February, 2020 17 patients received SBRT followed by IRE. These patients were matched with 17 patients who received SBRT from January, 2012 to March, 2019. Most patients received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (82.4%) and were AJCC 8 stage III (79.4%). Median age of the overall cohort was 65.5 years and 50% were male. Median dose delivered to 95% of gross tumor volume was 32.61 Gy, and median pre SBRT CA19-9 value was 70.5 U/mL. There were no statistically significant differences in matched characteristics between the two cohorts. Among the SBRT+IRE, the median time between IRE and SBRT was 66 days (range:49-467 days). The median OS, PFS, FFLF, and FFDF for IRE+SBRT vs. SBRT alone from SBRT was 10.8 vs 15.1 months, 9.6 vs. 15.3 months, 15.7 vs. 15.3 months, 15.9 vs. 14.4 months respectively (all P > .10). 11 patients in the entire cohort experienced toxicity as a result of their radiation therapy (35%), with one G3 GIB and one patient experiencing G3 abdominal pain. Among the 17 patients who underwent IRE, nine patients experienced toxicity (53%). Most of these events were G3, with two G4 intestinal bleeds. There was zero mortality in the 90 day period post operatively. Conclusions: In a retrospective cohort,non-selective delivery ofIRE afterSBRT demonstrated no oncological benefit for patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma compared to only SBRT. Compared to historical experiences of IRE alone, there was no increase in overall toxicity with the combination of SBRT and IRE. The optimal timing, sequencing, and indications for IRE and SBRT in LAPC remain unknown and are best assessed prospectively. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio for predicting palliative chemotherapy outcomes in advanced pancreatic cancer patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Xue ◽  
Masashi Kanai ◽  
Yukiko Mori ◽  
Takafumi Nishimura ◽  
Norimitsu Uza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neutrophil To Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Lymphocyte Ratio

Randomized Controlled Trial Of Dalteparin For Primary Thromboprophylaxis For Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) In Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer (APC): Risk Factors Predictive Of VTE

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 580-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saroj Vadhan-Raj ◽  
Xiao Zhou ◽  
Gauri R. Varadhachary ◽  
Javle Milind ◽  
David Fogelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Activation Markers ◽  
Compression Ultrasound ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Background Risk of VTE is high in cancer patients, especially, in patients with APC. Treatment with chemotherapy further increases the risk. Purpose of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin in reducing the incidence of VTE in APC patients planned to start chemotherapy; and to determine the baseline risk factors/biomarkers predictive of VTE. Methods Patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer planned to start chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to dalteparin vs control arms, stratified for the presence of metastasis and central venous catheter (CVC). The treatment arm received dalteparin 5000 U SQ daily for 16 weeks during chemotherapy and the control arm received chemotherapy alone. Bilateral compression ultrasound of the lower extremities was performed at baseline, and during study (weeks-8 and-16). In addition, blood was collected to identify biomarkers such as, plasma D-dimer levels, platelet activation markers (P-selectin), thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), prothrombin fragments 1 and 2 (F1+2), and cytokine levels. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of clinical and laboratory parameters were done to identify risk factors associated with the development of VTE. Results Of 87 patients enrolled, 75 were randomized to dalteparin (38 patients) or control (37 patients) arms; 8 did not meet the eligibility criteria (including 6 found positive for incidental VTE on screening ultrasound), and 4 withdrew consents before randomization. There were 41 males and 34 females; with median age 52 (range, 36-77 years). Over half of the patients (55% dalteparin arm and 54% control arm) completed 16 weeks on study. All 75 patients were evaluable for response in an intent-to-treat analysis. During the study, the incidence of VTE was 22% [8/37 patients; 2 pulmonary emboli (PE) and 6 deep vein thrombosis (DVT)] on the control arm as compared to 5% (2/38 patients; both DVT) on the dalteparin arm (p = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, baseline plasma levels of D-dimer, ECOG performance status, presence of CVC, and prophylaxis with dalteparin were independent factors predictive of risk for VTE, as shown below. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two arms; however, there were higher proportion of patients with elevated baseline D-dimer levels in the dalteparin arm than the control arm (≥ 5000 ng/mL 16% vs 3%). Elevated baseline D-dimer level (≥ 5000 ng/mL) was also predictive of the presence of silent or asymptomatic VTE at screening for study entry (p=0.001), suggesting its potential value in identifying patients with silent VTE. Treatment with dalteparin was well tolerated; the main adverse events included minimal bruising (5/34, 15%), or pain (2/34, 6%) at the injection sites. There were no clinically significant bleeding episodes in the dalteparin arm. Conclusions The results of this study showed that the incidence of VTE is very high in patients with APC. Primary thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin was well tolerated and was associated with 75% reduction in the incidence of VTE in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer while receiving chemotherapy. Baseline risk factors such as elevated D-dimer levels may help identify high risk patients for primary thromboprophylaxis as well as patients with the presence of asymptomatic VTE. Disclosures: Vadhan-Raj: Eisai: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Fragmin (Dalteparin): Prophylaxis of VTE in ambulatory cancer patients while receiving chemotherapy.

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-lymphocyte ratio as prognostic factors for locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 326-326
Author(s):  
Byung Min Lee ◽  
Seung Yeun Chung ◽  
Jee Suk Chang ◽  
Kyong Joo Lee ◽  
Si Young Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neutrophil Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Pre Treatment

326 Background: It is well known that locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients have a poor prognosis. Recently, hematologic markers showing systemic inflammatory status such as neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have aroused much attention due to its potential to predict patient survival. In this study, we investigated whether pre-treatment NLR and PLR independently and in combination would be significant prognostic factors for survival in locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients. Methods: A total of 497 locally advanced (borderline resectable and unresectable) pancreatic cancer patients who received neoadjuvant or definitive chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) between January 2005 and December 2015 were included in this study. NLR and PLR prior to the start of treatment within 2 weeks were defined as pre-treatment NLR and PLR. We divided the patients with the median values of pre-treatment NLR and PLR; NLR < 2.44 group (n = 248), NLR ≥ 2.44 group (n = 249), PLR < 149 group (n = 248) and PLR ≥ 149 (n = 249) group. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between each group for NLR and PLR. Results: Median overall survival was 15.7 months (range, 2.3-128.5 months). For NLR, the OS, PFS rates were significantly lower in the NLR ≥ 2.44 group, with 1-year OS rates of 67.9% and 61.5% (p = 0.003) and 1-year PFS rates of 38.1% and 32.4% (p = 0.003), for NLR < 2.44 and ≥ 2.44 group, respectively. The PLR ≥ 149 group also showed significantly poorer OS and PFS than PLR < 149 group. The 1-year OS rates were 68.1% and 61.3% (p = 0.029) and 1-year PFS rates were 37.9% and 32.5% (p = 0.027), for PLR < 149 and ≥ 149 group, respectively. When multivariate analysis was performed, NLR ≥ 2.44 remained as a significant adverse factor for OS (p = 0.011) and PFS (p = 0.026). PLR > 149 also proved to be a significant factor for poorer OS (p = 0.003) and PFS (p = 0.021). Conclusions: Elevated pre-treatment NLR and PLR independently and in combination significantly predicted poor OS and PFS. Pre-treatment NLR and PLR are useful prognostic factors for OS and PFS in locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document