Search

End-of-life decision making in cancer can be a complicated process. Patients and families encounter multiple providers throughout their cancer care. When the efforts of these providers are not well coordinated in teams, opportunities for high-quality, longitudinal goals of care discussions can be missed. This article reviews the case of a 55-year-old man with lung cancer, illustrating the barriers and missed opportunities for end-of-life decision making in his care through the lens of team leadership, a key principle in the science of teams. The challenges demonstrated in this case reflect the importance of the four functions of team leadership: information search and structuring, information use in problem solving, managing personnel resources, and managing material resources. Engaging in shared leadership of these four functions can help care providers improve their interactions with patients and families concerning end-of-life care decision making. This shared leadership can also produce a cohesive care plan that benefits from the expertise of the range of available providers while reflecting patient needs and preferences. Clinicians and researchers should consider the roles of team leadership functions and shared leadership in improving patient care when developing and studying models of cancer care delivery.

Population studies support an increased incidence of most cancers among older adults. Colorectal cancer has high prevalence in the aging population, with a median age of 69 years at diagnosis and 74 years at death. The vast majority of patients with colon cancer (CC) will require chemotherapy treatments during their disease course, challenging oncologists with the task of tailoring therapy for older patients with CC in the face of limited evidence-based data to guide them. Factors such as comorbidity, performance status, cognitive function, and social support may affect decision making and complicate tolerance of any recommended therapy. In recent years, attention to the specific needs of the aging population with cancer has given rise to the field of geriatric oncology in general, and has generated an increasing fund of knowledge on which to base chemotherapy delivery for this specific population of patients with CC. This article will review the available data specifically for chemotherapy management of older patients with CC in the postoperative and metastatic settings.

51 Background: ASCO guidelines recommend palliative care (PC) referral for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. Despite this, implementation has considerable hurdles. 1st year oncology fellows at our institution identified low rates of palliative care in their longitudinal clinic as an avenue for improvement. Methods: A Fellow-led multidisciplinary team aimed to increase palliative care utilization for patients with advanced cancer followed in first-year fellows’ clinic from baseline 11.5% (5/43 patients, Jul-Dec, '18) to 30% over a 4-mo period. Utilization was defined as evaluation in the outpatient palliative care clinic hosted in the cancer center. The team identified several barriers to referral: orders difficult to find in EMR, multiple consulting mechanisms (EMR, by phone, in person), EMR request not activating formal consult, no centralized scheduler to contact/confirm appointment, and poor awareness of team structure. PDSA cycles were implemented based on identified opportunities. Data were obtained from the EMR. Results: The PDSA cycle included focus groups with stakeholders, standardizing referral process via single order set, identifying a single scheduler with bidirectional communication, and dissemination of process changes. The PDSA was implemented Jan-Apr '19. Rates of palliative care use increased from 11.5% pre-intervention to 43% (27/62 patients) post-intervention. In addition, median time to evaluation in palliative care clinic after placing a consult improved from 23 days (range, 10-60 days) to 12 days (range, 6-19 days). Conclusions: A multidisciplinary approach and classic QI methodology improved palliative care use for patients with advanced cancer. The pilot succeeded given the small number of fellows, buy-in from stakeholders, and institutional support of efforts. Straightforward EMR interventions and ancillary staff use are effective in addressing under referrals.

563 Background: Mismatch repair proficient (MMRp) colorectal cancer (CRC) is refractory to single-agent programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) inhibitors. Cancer vaccines may prime the tumor microenvironment for anti-PD1 therapy. Colon GVAX is an allogeneic, whole-cell, GM-CSF-secreting vaccine that induces T-cell immunity against tumor-associated antigens. GVAX has previously been studied in combination with low-dose cyclophosphamide (Cy) to inhibit regulatory T cells. Methods: We conducted an open label, single-arm, phase 2 study of GVAX/Cy in combination with the PD1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in patients with MMRp CRC who had received at least two prior lines of therapy in the metastatic setting. Patients received pembrolizumab plus Cy on day 1, GVAX on day 2, of a 21 day cycle through 4 cycles, and were then continued on a maintenance regimen of pembolizumab every 3 weeks with cy/GVAX given every 12 weeks. Results: Seventeen patients were enrolled. There were no objective responses, and the disease control rate was 18% by RECIST and 29% by irRC. The median progression free survival was 2.7 months and the median overall survival was 7.0 months. Biochemical responses (≥30% decline in CEA) were observed in 7/17 (41%) of patients. Two patients (12%) had grade 3/4 adverse events that were attributed to study therapy. To test the hypothesis that the induction of a humoral response against CEA protein had resulted in the observed biochemical responses, we measured patient titers of anti-CEA antibodies. Anti-CEA antibody titers increased 13 of 13 patients (100%) with available paired pre- and on-treatment research blood samples, but the change in anti-CEA antibody titers were similar among CEA responders and non-responders. Multiplex immunohistochemistry performed on pre- and post- biopsy specimens will be reported at the conference. Conclusions: GVAX/Cy plus pembrolizumab is well tolerated in advanced MMRp CRC and resulted in CEA responses but not radiographic responses. PFS and OS compare favorably to historical controls in this small cohort. CEA responses were not observed with PD1 monotherapy in MMRp CRC, suggesting GVAX can modulate the antitumor immune response. Clinical trial information: NCT02981524.