Proportion of palliative patients

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Ray D. Ayshun

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
3,209
Reaction score
5,916
Going for an alliterative title. Today's OTV day, and I have 26 on treats, of which 1 is an SRS for an new single met in an RCC patient. Technically, he's the only one that would fit into the "palliative" group. In general, I'm running at <10%. I think the local med onc group sends some palliative patients to centers closer to home and prefers I do more complex definitive cases, but this still seems low. And there's obv a substantial fraction number disparity in pall vs def cases, but even so, 7 of my last 50 sims were palliative. Is this pretty much what others see out of curiosity? I know that academic centers are probably skewed more towards definitive excepting the bone met centers of excellence.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm probably at 15% on average of the daily treatments.
 
That's likely going to be highly variable depending on your practice setting. I frequently have ~ 20% palliative. We get a relatively large number of IP consults in a hospital that serves lower socioeconomic status pts who often show up in the ER with metastatic disease or localized disease with a poor performance status that precludes definitive treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I try to keep track of my patients and what constitutes my practice
2020 and 2021 out of completed patients ran from 21-25% palliative
This year so far it seems to me a much smaller percentage and prelim numbers are about 15% so that tracks

As my medoncs have become busier it seems I get less palliative referrals
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Going for an alliterative title. Today's OTV day, and I have 26 on treats, of which 1 is an SRS for an new single met in an RCC patient. Technically, he's the only one that would fit into the "palliative" group. In general, I'm running at <10%. I think the local med onc group sends some palliative patients to centers closer to home and prefers I do more complex definitive cases, but this still seems low. And there's obv a substantial fraction number disparity in pall vs def cases, but even so, 7 of my last 50 sims were palliative. Is this pretty much what others see out of curiosity? I know that academic centers are probably skewed more towards definitive excepting the bone met centers of excellence.
I don't have many true palliative patients (probably on the order of 10-15% like you)... but I do have a lot of "greyzone" patients with central thoracic oligoprogressive disease where I am doing something between palliation and definitive tx
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Going for an alliterative title. Today's OTV day, and I have 26 on treats, of which 1 is an SRS for an new single met in an RCC patient. Technically, he's the only one that would fit into the "palliative" group. In general, I'm running at <10%. I think the local med onc group sends some palliative patients to centers closer to home and prefers I do more complex definitive cases, but this still seems low. And there's obv a substantial fraction number disparity in pall vs def cases, but even so, 7 of my last 50 sims were palliative. Is this pretty much what others see out of curiosity? I know that academic centers are probably skewed more towards definitive excepting the bone met centers of excellence.
Of course this number was about 50% 20 years or more ago

What changed?!? (said sarcastically)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I see very little bone mets at my community center.
 
Today's schedule: 18 out 72 are palliative. I did not count GBMs as palliative, if you add them it's 22 palliative out of 72.
So, about 25-30% palliative cases in our hospital.

Of course this number was about 50% 20 years or more ago

What changed?!? (said sarcastically)
The strinking point is that systemic treatment has got a lot better than 20 years ago. People were dying within months with stage IV NSCLC & melanoma.
Some still do nowadays, but the majority lives longer.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Today's schedule: 18 out 72 are palliative. I did not count GBMs as palliative, if you add them it's 22 palliative out of 72.
So, about 25-30% palliative cases in our hospital.


The strinking point is that systemic treatment has got a lot better than 20 years ago. People were dying within months with stage IV NSCLC & melanoma.
Some still do nowadays, but the majority lives longer.
All this. Plus other things. In America there has been a sea change away from Stage III and IV lung at presentation and much more Stage I

Also, I have never heard it phrased this way, but smoking causes not just cancer but metastatic cancer too.
 
I go full curative… you guys are wimps! My message to patients is that we’re either going to cure you, kill you or both.

I make sure to stage each lesion as stage I since patients hate hearing they have “stage 4.”
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
I go full curative… you guys are wimps! My message to patients is that we’re either going to cure you, kill you or both.

I make sure to stage each lesion as stage I since patients hate hearing they have “stage 4.”
Who let the MedOnc into our forum? Sir this is for Radiation Oncology, please take your Chemotherapist self to a different message board.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I go full curative… you guys are wimps! My message to patients is that we’re either going to cure you, kill you or both.

I make sure to stage each lesion as stage I since patients hate hearing they have “stage 4.”
If I have to have one more conversation with a patient with a 3 year history of metastatic whatever cancer with 75 liver mets who is sent for bone met palliation and thinks I am going to "knock the cancer back into remission" and angrily, in shock, tellls me I am the first person who has ever used the term "stage 4" and "incurable"...

Please shoot me when I become the doctor than no longer GAF to be able to use the words "death" "dying" and "terminal" with a patient.

Until then...

c2bd2156692aaee66ab614f503d526fd.jpg



Edit: And to answer the original question, I deal with this a lot, in a far higher proportion than others have mentioned here.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
If I have to have one more conversation with a patient with a 3 year history of metastatic whatever cancer with 75 liver mets who is sent for bone met palliation and thinks I am going to "knock the cancer back into remission" and angrily, in shock, tellls me I am the first person who has ever used the term "stage 4" and "incurable"...

Please shoot me when I become the doctor than no longer GAF to be able to use the words "death" "dying" and "terminal" with a patient.

Until then...

c2bd2156692aaee66ab614f503d526fd.jpg



Edit: And to answer the original question, I deal with this a lot, in a far higher proportion than others have mentioned here.
yes i have these conversations all the time. i have the luxury of time and use my 60 min time slot to review scans, diagnosis, prognosis, etc.
I think the med oncs are just way too busy and often don't have the time for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
yes i have these conversations all the time. i have the luxury of time and use my 60 min time slot to review scans, diagnosis, prognosis, etc.
I think the med oncs are just way too busy and often don't have the time for this.

I, not as infrequently as I would like, seem like I am the first to have a discussion about the difference between 'treatable' and 'curable'. Now, I know patients frequently have the memory capacity of a goldfish, so early on in a diagnosis where they get the waves of "omg I have cancer", hearing "your cancer is not curable" may not be something that sticks.

But as mentioned above... breast cancer very much treatable, but curable... wouldn't use that outside of VERY limited metastatic scenarios, and even then with lots of hedging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
25% of palliation is probably norm, although working at larger hospitals I've hit 50% in the past
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I, not as infrequently as I would like, seem like I am the first to have a discussion about the difference between 'treatable' and 'curable'. Now, I know patients frequently have the memory capacity of a goldfish, so early on in a diagnosis where they get the waves of "omg I have cancer", hearing "your cancer is not curable" may not be something that sticks.

But as mentioned above... breast cancer very much treatable, but curable... wouldn't use that outside of VERY limited metastatic scenarios, and even then with lots of hedging.
I think this hits on one of the most interesting and challenging aspects of being a radiation oncologist or oncologist. We all have had the experience of meeting a terminal patient in consultation the first time and slowly coming to the realization in the discussion that the patient doesn’t seem to grasp their stage and prognosis. Perhaps even more starkly they voice that another doctor has told them a lower stage or better prognosis that they clearly don’t have.

Early in my career I tried to be: The Educator. It was my calling to correct the poor patient’s misinformation and set them straight in life, explain how they’re terminal, explain how their prognosis is actually not that great, or whatever. Never meanly but with firmness and maybe a little unemotional detachment.

In time I learned this was really wrong. I only try to give a patient cognitively dissonant new info if they ask and insist over multiple queries (and that is exceedingly rare). The movie ‘The Farewell’ is a great meditation on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think this hits on one of the most interesting and challenging aspects of being a radiation oncologist or oncologist. We all have had the experience of meeting a terminal patient in consultation the first time and slowly coming to the realization in the discussion that the patient doesn’t seem to grasp their stage and prognosis. Perhaps even more starkly they voice that another doctor has told them a lower stage or better prognosis that they clearly don’t have.

Early in my career I tried to be: The Educator. It was my calling to correct the poor patient’s misinformation and set them straight in life, explain how they’re terminal, explain how their prognosis is actually not that great, or whatever. Never meanly but with firmness and maybe a little unemotional detachment.

In time I learned this was really wrong. I only try to give a patient cognitively dissonant new info if they ask and insist over multiple queries (and that is exceedingly rare). The movie ‘The Farewell’ is a great meditation on this.
this is brilliant. I think I've lost a few patients to the academic center because of my frank honesty.
 
The movie ‘The Farewell’ is a great meditation on this.
It's a tough call. There is a right to know and a right to not know. The physician IMO has an obligation to express futility when appropriate, also an obligation to explain the potential benefits of their treatment (what they are and are not).

I would say that only in rare circumstances is empowering the patient the wrong thing to do.

I have noticed a more open attitude towards hospice, palliative care and empowering patients regarding therapeutic escalation/de-escalation among younger medoncs. All good things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I think this hits on one of the most interesting and challenging aspects of being a radiation oncologist or oncologist. We all have had the experience of meeting a terminal patient in consultation the first time and slowly coming to the realization in the discussion that the patient doesn’t seem to grasp their stage and prognosis. Perhaps even more starkly they voice that another doctor has told them a lower stage or better prognosis that they clearly don’t have.

Early in my career I tried to be: The Educator. It was my calling to correct the poor patient’s misinformation and set them straight in life, explain how they’re terminal, explain how their prognosis is actually not that great, or whatever. Never meanly but with firmness and maybe a little unemotional detachment.

In time I learned this was really wrong. I only try to give a patient cognitively dissonant new info if they ask and insist over multiple queries (and that is exceedingly rare). The movie ‘The Farewell’ is a great meditation on this.

I at some point tell patients that I will not sugarcoat things for them when it comes to treatment outcome and prognosis. It may end up with some folks who are unhappy but the majority are very appreciative. While I would not get into the weeds and verify that every single metastatic patient knows that they are dying in the absence of them bringing it up, I do try to stress the limitations of current therapies when patients assume (or ask me) if they are curable (when they are not).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think this hits on one of the most interesting and challenging aspects of being a radiation oncologist or oncologist. We all have had the experience of meeting a terminal patient in consultation the first time and slowly coming to the realization in the discussion that the patient doesn’t seem to grasp their stage and prognosis. Perhaps even more starkly they voice that another doctor has told them a lower stage or better prognosis that they clearly don’t have.

Early in my career I tried to be: The Educator. It was my calling to correct the poor patient’s misinformation and set them straight in life, explain how they’re terminal, explain how their prognosis is actually not that great, or whatever. Never meanly but with firmness and maybe a little unemotional detachment.

In time I learned this was really wrong. I only try to give a patient cognitively dissonant new info if they ask and insist over multiple queries (and that is exceedingly rare). The movie ‘The Farewell’ is a great meditation on this.

Excuse me while I go full Dr. Phil for a moment...

We increasingly live in a world where people want to deny reality and demand others engage in fantasy/alternate realities. I identify as X. I feel better that way. Oh, well we want you to feel better (we're good after all and want to do good things, and making someone feel better is good), you can have whatever reality you want and we will accept it. Do we tell the 70 year old addicted to plastic surgery that everything they are doing doesn't, in fact, make them look 30 again, and maybe encourage them to try therapy to help them accept the inevitabilities of aging? Or do we just take their money and make them look like a lizard person? Do we tell the morbidly obese person that they are beautiful and there's nothing wrong with them, or tell them they are harming themselves by over-eating?

You have widely metastatic disease but want to be a curable cancer patient? Well, that presents a number of ethical and legal issues for me then. You just don't want to talk about it and tell me to treat how I think is right? That's ok, that's different. We won't talk about it then. Because you told me you acknowledge the reality is bad, and you just don't want to dwell on it.

The compassionate thing to do is always to help people accept reality, not engage their fantasies of how to avoid it. Unfortunately, this is harder to do and makes you the "bad guy" because it goes against the innate desire we have to "be good" by making other people feel good in the short term, which always has the trade off of pain in the long-term.
 
Excuse me while I go full Dr. Phil for a moment...

We increasingly live in a world where people want to deny reality and demand others engage in fantasy/alternate realities. I identify as X. I feel better that way. Oh, well we want you to feel better (we're good after all and want to do good things, and making someone feel better is good), you can have whatever reality you want and we will accept it. Do we tell the 70 year old addicted to plastic surgery that everything they are doing doesn't, in fact, make them look 30 again, and maybe encourage them to try therapy to help them accept the inevitabilities of aging? Or do we just take their money and make them look like a lizard person? Do we tell the morbidly obese person that they are beautiful and there's nothing wrong with them, or tell them they are harming themselves by over-eating?

You have widely metastatic disease but want to be a curable cancer patient? Well, that presents a number of ethical and legal issues for me then. You just don't want to talk about it and tell me to treat how I think is right? That's ok, that's different. We won't talk about it then. Because you told me you acknowledge the reality is bad, and you just don't want to dwell on it.

The compassionate thing to do is always to help people accept reality, not engage their fantasies of how to avoid it. Unfortunately, this is harder to do and makes you the "bad guy" because it goes against the innate desire we have to "be good" by making other people feel good in the short term, which always has the trade off of pain in the long-term.
Your logical and well-grounded argument is no match for....PRESS GAINEY! Thank god my chairs perspective is that if you make everyone happy you are probably not a particularly good oncologist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Thank god my chairs perspective is that if you make everyone happy you are probably not a particularly good oncologist.

It sounds like I'm simply just an antisocial a-hole.

Tell cancer patients they have cancer.
Sometimes make staff stay past 4 to treat said cancer patients and miss kids soccer practice.
Hurt admins feelings by telling them I'm not interested in their initial job offers and contract renegotiations.

I think the pattern is that I'm the problem. I swear some of the posts here just make me want to take a VA job and just forget about all of the above.
Your chair sounds like one of the goods ones, then. Clearly an antisocial a-hole too. Let me know if you are hiring.
 
Ha!

I think someone asked before- do you have kids?

My wife doesn’t work, but we are in day care illness hell and have to pull them for all varieties of ailments. If she did work, I’m not sure what we’d do.

We have different experiences completely, as I’ve said. When staff has an emergency, it is almost always real (or something I’d consider stepping out for). I’ve found mine to be very decent people. Some even like to hang out, but others don’t. I like them, too.

I wish you could have what I have had. I’m sure you would have a different view point. If I had what you had, maybe I’d be even more antagonistic on Twitter
 
Excuse me while I go full Dr. Phil for a moment...

We increasingly live in a world where people want to deny reality and demand others engage in fantasy/alternate realities. I identify as X. I feel better that way. Oh, well we want you to feel better (we're good after all and want to do good things, and making someone feel better is good), you can have whatever reality you want and we will accept it. Do we tell the 70 year old addicted to plastic surgery that everything they are doing doesn't, in fact, make them look 30 again, and maybe encourage them to try therapy to help them accept the inevitabilities of aging? Or do we just take their money and make them look like a lizard person? Do we tell the morbidly obese person that they are beautiful and there's nothing wrong with them, or tell them they are harming themselves by over-eating?

You have widely metastatic disease but want to be a curable cancer patient? Well, that presents a number of ethical and legal issues for me then. You just don't want to talk about it and tell me to treat how I think is right? That's ok, that's different. We won't talk about it then. Because you told me you acknowledge the reality is bad, and you just don't want to dwell on it.

The compassionate thing to do is always to help people accept reality, not engage their fantasies of how to avoid it. Unfortunately, this is harder to do and makes you the "bad guy" because it goes against the innate desire we have to "be good" by making other people feel good in the short term, which always has the trade off of pain in the long-term.
Yeah but… “reality” is highly subjective
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm at 1/20 right now...I actually wish our medoncs sent more palliative patients to us and in the coming year am going to make a push for more aggressively palliation (pitchforks down, I mean making sure that patients who can benefit from palliation see us) and treating oligomets/offering local consolidation to oligometastatic disease where it's justified. A good example is that I know atezolizumab kind of threw a wrench in local consolidation for ES-SCLC but I've seen 3-5 patients in the last year that had a great initial response and then terrible symptomatic local failures.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
(Raises hand) so how does one qualify for the Platinum level membership for this club? I think I've earned it.
Let me know when you've gotten to the point where you are offered a job but then request that they put their verbal promises in the contract and subsequently have the job offer rescinded because you were "disagreeable" and they couldn't hire someone who "didn't trust them."

The "we can't make one-off contracts" is the biggest line of baloney I've ever heard. That's a 2 way street CEO-buddy, how about you sign MY contract?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do you tell ALL metastatic patients that "cure" is impossible?

I don't... especially not those for whom there are highly effective systemic options. I DO tell them that it is exceedingly unlikely... but (if applicable), I will mention that I know folks >5 years out of a metastatic diagnosis who are still disease free. Is that wrong?

I think it is easy to set a rule in your mind that you tell all metastatic patients that they are "terminal"... you can hone your talking points, have the tissues ready, and be prepared for the horror. However, I don't think it is always that simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do you tell ALL metastatic patients that "cure" is impossible?

I don't... especially not those for whom there are highly effective systemic options. I DO tell them that it is exceedingly unlikely... but (if applicable), I will mention that I know folks >5 years out of a metastatic diagnosis who are still disease free. Is that wrong?

I think it is easy to set a rule in your mind that you tell all metastatic patients that they are "terminal"... you can hone your talking points, have the tissues ready, and be prepared for the horror. However, I don't think it is always that simple.
I not infrequently discuss with patients that they're going to die.
 
I tell all of my metastatic and GBM patients about how my chair in residency had a GBM patient live for 15 years, or at least said he did

My patient satisfactions scores are 100%
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Entirely as an anecdote, I used to work alongside a surgeon that had metastatic osteosarc as a teenager. Over a dozen surgeries later, cured and a case report on him later, now a subspecialist surgeon. Wild
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Entirely as an anecdote, I used to work alongside a surgeon that had metastatic osteosarc as a teenager. Over a dozen surgeries later, cured and a case report on him later, now a subspecialist surgeon. Wild

I know of an ED physician who had metastatic melanoma to the brain 20 years ago when he was in training and got SRS. He was the first person who ever told me about rad onc when I was still in college. Just googled him. Still out there practicing.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users
Entirely as an anecdote, I used to work alongside a surgeon that had metastatic osteosarc as a teenager. Over a dozen surgeries later, cured and a case report on him later, now a subspecialist surgeon. Wild
I know of an ED physician who had metastatic melanoma to the brain 20 years ago when he was in training and got SRS. He was the first person who ever told me about rad onc when I was still in college. Just googled him. Still out there practicing.
Some cancers never read the textbook!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Some cancers never read the textbook!
I remember the "exceptional responses" initiative from years ago. A database for these type of cases that was supposed to be used to study underlying biology.

I am not aware of any tools however that let us study "exceptional" things well. By exceptional, I mean events or people that are really many std deviations away from the norm. Sure, you can study the top 5% or 10% of something, but by the time you are looking at the top 0.1% everything falls apart. Some patients have had a complete response to placebo!

I do tell some patients that exceptional outcomes do happen, but I have nothing to do with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
There are ongoing initiatives for this and it's quite cool.
The Exceptional Responders Initiative: Feasibility of a National Cancer Institute Pilot Study - PubMed
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And some pathologies are misdiagnosed. There may be exceptions but they are white elephants.

That GBM or melanoma was actually something else, if they're alive 20 years later, as in 99.99% certain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And some pathologies are misdiagnosed. There may be exceptions but they are white elephants.

That GBM or melanoma was actually something else, if they're alive 20 years later, as in 99.99% certain.
Exactly the comment I was gonna post.
That GBM was probably a small double mutated oligodendroglioma.
That melanoma met was likely a focus of benign enhancement
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 user
Top