among hospitalized patients with cancer, young individuals, treated in comprehensive cancer centers or in high-volume centers without palliative care units were the most likely to receive chemotherapy near the end of life. We found no evident pattern between the expected chemosensitivity of different cancers and the probability for patients to receive chemotherapy close to death.

A high proportion of patients who died from haematological malignancies receive specific treatments near the end of life. There is a need for a better and earlier integration of the palliative care approach in the standard practice of haematology. However, substantial variation according to the type of haematological malignancy suggests that the patients should not be considered as one homogeneous group. Implementation of palliative care should account for differences across haematological malignancies.

BackgroundLittle is known about what is at stake at a subjective level for the oncologists and the advanced cancer patients when they face the question whether to continue, limit or stop specific therapies. We studied (1) the frequency of such questioning, and (2) subjective determinants of the decision-making process from the physicians’ and the patients’ perspectives.Methods(1) All hospitalized patients were screened during 1 week in oncology and/or hematology units of five institutions. We included those with advanced cancer for whom a questioning about the pursuit, the limitation or the withholding of specific therapies (QST) was raised. (2) Qualitative design was based on in-depth interviews.ResultsIn conventional units, 12.8 % of cancer patients (26 out of 202) were concerned by a QST during the study period. Interviews were conducted with all physicians and 21 advanced cancer patients. The timing of this questioning occurred most frequently as physicians estimated life expectancy between 15 days and 3 months. Faced with the most frequent dilemma (uncertain risk-benefit balance), physicians showed different ways of involving patients. The first two were called the “no choice” models: 1) trying to resolve the dilemma via a technical answer or a “wait-and-see” posture, instead of involving the patients in the questioning and the thinking; and 2), giving a “last minute” choice to the patients, leaving to them the responsibility of the decision. In a third model, they engaged early in shared reflections and dialogue about uncertainties and limits with patients, proxies and care teams. These schematic trends influenced patients’ attitudes towards uncertainty and limits, as they were influenced by these ones. Individual and systemic barriers to a shared questioning were pointed out by physicians and patients.ConclusionsThis study indicate to what extent these difficult decisions are related to physicians’ and patients’ respective and mutually influenced abilities to deal with and share about uncertainties and limits, throughout the disease trajectory. These insights may help physicians, patients and policy makers to enrich their understanding of underestimated and sensitive key issues of the decision-making process.