No abstract

Oncology guidelines clearly outline evidence-based recommendations for patients with newly diagnosed cancer to help oncologists determine which patients are appropriate for a genetic assessment. Ideally, patients with newly diagnosed cancer, who have personal or family histories suggestive of hereditary cancer predisposition, are referred for genetics work up in the nonurgent setting. However, in some cases, a genetics work up is delayed until the end of life. This is a time of heightened stress and additional obstacles, including discordance between family members regarding the obtainment of genetic information, paying for testing, selecting a surrogate to receive and disperse information in the case of a patient's death, and the use of DNA banking for future evaluation. To meaningfully participate and support patients, family members, and our colleagues facing requests at the end of life for genetic testing, we provide a practical approach and highlight resources to effectively engage in this rising challenge.

PURPOSE: Advance care planning (ACP) is a clinical skill that can be taught. An opportunity exists to teach how to conduct ACP to clinicians not typically engaged in these conversations to increase the likelihood that patients and caregivers engage in ACP. We conducted a prospective study exploring the feasibility of a pharmacist-led ACP intervention. METHODS: We completed a prospective, single-center study from July 2015 to July 2017. We included patients of age ≥ 18 years with incurable cancer referred to the palliative care clinic. A trained pharmacist led an ACP discussion with the patient and selected proxy. We defined feasibility as completion of ≥ 30 pharmacist-led ACP discussions over the study period. Additionally, we defined an informed healthcare proxy as someone who understood three key end-of-life (EOL) treatment preferences: the patient's personal definition of quality of life, desired resuscitation status, and preferred location of death (in or out of the hospital). Patients were followed until the end of the study or death. For those patients who died, the pharmacist contacted the proxy for follow-up and explored satisfaction with the ACP intervention. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients completed the study. All selected proxies completed the intervention and were able to understand the three EOL preferences. At the time of the patient’s death (n = 20), proxies reported that 66.6% received their preferred resuscitation status and 72.2% died in their preferred location. Proxy satisfaction with the ACP process was 7.6 ± 2.5 (mean ± SD) on a 11-point Likert scale. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate the potential for pharmacists to lead and engage in ACP in the outpatient setting.

No abstract

165 Background: Molecular tumor profiling may provide information as to whether to initiate or not initiate a targeted therapy. As to the timing of when the tumor profiling is ordered relative to date of diagnosis, date of death, and palliative care (PC) consultations are unknown. The primary objective of this study was to examine molecular tumor profiling ordering trends in the course of cancer illness. Methods: A preliminary, retrospective chart review was conducted in a cohort of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer at an academic, NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Patients were identified from a tumor registry and then matched to a next generation sequencing molecular tumor profiling database. The date of palliative care consultation was collected from the electronic medical record. Differences in the date of when tumor profiling was ordered and date of diagnosis, date of PC consultation, and/or date of death were determined. Data were compiled into a single database and descriptive statistical analyses were performed. Results: A cohort of 397 (205 women) cancer patients was included. Metastatic disease was present in 108 (27.2%) patients, with mean±SD age of 58.7 ± 13.5 yrs. One-hundred and nine (27.6%) patients received a PC consultation (n=60 inpatient, n = 49 outpatient). As of February 2016, 119 (30%) patients died, with 58 (48.7%) out of 119 receiving a PC consultation. The difference between date of cancer diagnosis and date of tumor profiling ordered was 2467.4 ± 6865.7 days (n = 376), while the difference between date of tumor profiling ordered and date of death was 229.1 ± 185.7 days (n = 111). The difference between date of cancer diagnosis and date of death was 1507.5 ± 2002.1 days (n = 119). In patients were the tumor profiling was ordered before the PC consultation (n = 29), the difference between date of PC consultation and date tumor profiling ordered was 157.3 ± 258.1 days. In contrast, in patients were the tumor profiling was ordered after the PC consultation (n = 76), the difference was 194.6 ± 168 days. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that molecular tumor profiling is ordered at the end and not at the beginning of a cancer illness. PC consultations are not routinely performed in patients who participate in tumor profiling.