BACKGROUND:

Many adult patients with cancer who know they are dying choose less intense care; additionally, high-intensity care is associated with worse caregiver outcomes. Little is known about intensity of end-of-life care in children with cancer.

METHODS:

By using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development administrative database, we performed a population-based analysis of patients with cancer aged 0 to 21 who died between 2000 and 2011. Rates of and sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with previously-defined end-of-life intensity indicators were determined. The intensity indicators included an intense medical intervention (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, ICU admission, or hemodialysis) within 30 days of death, intravenous chemotherapy within 14 days of death, and hospital death.

RESULTS:

The 3732 patients were 34% non-Hispanic white, and 41% had hematologic malignancies. The most prevalent intensity indicators were hospital death (63%) and ICU admission (20%). Sixty-five percent had ≥1 intensity indicator, 23% ≥2, and 22% ≥1 intense medical intervention. There was a bimodal association between age and intensity: ages <5 years and 15 to 21 years was associated with intense care. Patients with hematologic malignancies were more likely to have high-intensity end-of-life care, as were patients from underrepresented minorities, those who lived closer to the hospital, those who received care at a nonspecialty center (neither Children’s Oncology Group nor National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Center), and those receiving care after 2008.

CONCLUSIONS:

Nearly two-thirds of children who died of cancer experienced intense end-of-life care. Further research needs to determine if these rates and disparities are consistent with patient and/or family goals.

What’s Known on This Subject:

Many adult patients with cancer who know they are dying choose less intense care. High-intensity care is associated with worse caregiver outcomes. Little is known about the end-of-life care intensity of pediatric patients with cancer in the United States.

What This Study Adds:

Nearly two-thirds of children with cancer received intense end-of-life care intervention. Patients <5 years, adolescents, racial and/or ethnic minorities, and patients with hematologic malignancies received more intense end-of-life care. It is unknown if these rates and disparities are consistent with care goals.

Cancer is the leading cause of nonaccidental death in US children, with almost 2800 deaths annually,1 making end-of-life studies in pediatric oncology critical. Despite pediatric palliative care becoming a board-certificated specialty and an increase in pediatric palliative care programs in the last decade,2 pediatric patients with cancer are experiencing large end-of-life symptom burden.3 In 1 study of children with advanced cancer, 48% had pain, 46% fatigue, and 37% irritability.3 Therefore, novel approaches and studies are needed to understand and improve pediatric end-of-life care, including population-based studies.4 Additionally, studies of pediatric oncology end-of-life care can lay groundwork for studying other disease-related causes of death in pediatrics.

Intensity of end-of-life care receives much attention in adult oncology because of concerns that it may not be consistent with patient goals and caregiver outcomes in addition to cost. The majority of older adults who know they are dying do not want life-extending measures,5,6 and end-of-life care accounts for ∼25% of Medicare spending.7,9 Among adult caregivers of dying patients, more intense end-of-life care and hospital death are associated with worse caregiver outcomes (major depressive, posttraumatic stress, and prolonged grief disorders).10,11 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),12 the American Society of Clinical Oncology,13 and other professional organizations14,,16 call for a palliative approach to terminal illnesses.

Population-level studies of intensity of end-of-life care have been aided by the development and validation of administrative database intensity indicators, including ICU admission, hospital death, and procedures like intubation and hemodialysis within 30 days of death.17,,19 However, there are no population-level studies of intensity of end-of-life care in pediatric oncology in the United States. Initial population-level pediatric oncology intensity studies were conducted in Taiwan20 and Korea,21 with almost 80% of children dying of cancer receiving intense care, but cultural and health care system differences limit US generalizability. Recently, the first North American population-based study of intensity of end-of-life care revealed that 41% of pediatric oncology patients receive intense end-of-life care in Ontario, Canada.22 Again, differences in health care systems limit US generalizability. Therefore, we sought to determine the rates of and disparities in intensity of end-of-life in pediatric oncology through a population-based study in the United States (CA).

We conducted a retrospective (2000–2011) population-based analysis by using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) private patient discharge data database and vital statistics death certificate data. The database links a patient’s final admission and death certificate, with 2000 to 2011 linked at the time of analysis. All California hospitals, except federal facilities and prison hospitals, must submit discharge information to OSHPD. OSHPD data includes: age, race and/or ethnicity, sex, residence zip code, payer, length of stay, and up to 24 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. Stanford University Institutional Review Board and the California Committee for Protection of Human Subjects approved the study. Administrative data study reporting guidelines were followed.23 

The study population included patients aged 0 to 21 years at the time of death, who died between 2000 and 2011, with an oncologic diagnosis during a hospitalization within 6 months of death or cancer as the death certificate cause of death (Fig 1). The list of oncologic ICD-9 codes were developed by combining oncologic diagnosis in the Clinical Classification Software24 and oncologic ICD-9 codes previously used in OSHPD25 and removing potential nonmalignant conditions (eg, carcinomas-in-situ and Langerhans cell histiocytosis). The resulting ICD-9 codes were grouped according to surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program adolescent young adult site categories.26 Four pediatric oncologists reviewed the list. Death certificate cause of death categories for malignant neoplasms (C00–C97) were included but not benign or in situ neoplasms. Patients who died of accidents (except medical errors) or peripartum events were excluded.

FIGURE 1

Study population: California residents in California between 2000 and 2011 at ages 0 to 21 who died of cancer (but not peripartum events or accidents). ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision.

FIGURE 1

Study population: California residents in California between 2000 and 2011 at ages 0 to 21 who died of cancer (but not peripartum events or accidents). ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision.

Indicators of inpatient intensity of end-of-life care were ICU admission, intubation or mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy placement, gastrostomy-tube placement, hemodialysis, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the last 30 days of life, intravenous chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life, and hospital death.15,17,19 ICD-9 codes for intensity were previously described for all but ICU admission, which is not directly coded.17 ICU admission was determined by codes for intubation, mechanical ventilation by using an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy, arterial catheterization, or central venous pressure monitoring. Codes were included if they were present during an admission that took place entirely within the time frame of interest. Death location was determined from death certificates or hospital disposition of death. We calculated individual intensity indicator rates and composite measures including: (1) number of intense indicators for each patient (any of the above); (2) any medically-intense intervention (ICU admission, intubation or mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, or CPR); and (3) technology-dependent condition (gastrostomy or tracheostomy tube placement).

Sociodemographic variables (payer status, death age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, median household income [zip code–level median household income categorized by the 2004 federal poverty level27], and metropolitan service area) were determined from death certificates when possible, otherwise from last admission. The distance between residence and last hospital, closest hospital, and closest specialty center was calculated from zip code centers. Primary cancer diagnoses were classified (as above) and then grouped into hematologic malignancies (leukemia and lymphoma) and nonhematologic malignancies (solid tumors). Specialty centers were defined as Children’s Oncology Group centers or National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer centers. Patients were classified by number of nononcologic chronic condition categories by using categorizations of common causes of admission in children with chronic conditions.28 

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each independent and dependent variable and number of intense indicators, receipt of a medically-intense intervention, and technology-dependent intervention. By using the a priori independent variables above, logistic regression models were constructed to determine factors associated with: (1) hospital death, (2) any medically-intense intervention, (3) ≥2 intensity indicators, and (4) intravenous chemotherapy. A model was not constructed for technology-dependent therapies given low rates. Because of colinearity concerns, the univariate results and population distribution, distance from residence to final hospital but not urban and/or rural status, distance to closest hospital, or distance to specialty center was retained for the multivariable regression. Additional analyses used an interaction term between age and diagnosis. Results were presented as adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) was used.

The study population had 3732 patients (Fig 1) with the expected clinical and sociodemographic characteristic for a California cohort of pediatric patients dying of cancer (Table 1). The majority of patients had solid tumors (59%) with central nervous system tumors the most common (24%). Forty-one percent had a hematologic malignancy, with acute lymphoblastic leukemia the most common single hematologic malignancy (20%). The population was slightly older (with 43% being 15 to 21 years old) and diverse (with 45% Hispanic and 34% non-Hispanic white). Final hospitalization was at a specialty center for 78% of patients; however, it was more frequently at nonspecialty centers for older patients (Fig 2A).

TABLE 1

Demographics of the Study Population (Total N = 3732)

Characteristicn (%)
Death age  
 <5 y 680 (18.2) 
 5–9 y 708 (19.0) 
 10–14 y 749 (20.1) 
 15–21 y 1595 (42.7) 
Insurance  
 HMO 553 (14.8) 
 Public or self 1971 (52.8) 
 Private 1208 (32.4) 
Sex  
 Female 1562 (41.9) 
 Male 2170 (58.2) 
Race and/or ethnicity  
 Non-Hispanic white 1271 (34.1) 
 Hispanic 1695 (45.4) 
 Asian American 350 (9.4) 
 African American 258 (6.9) 
 Other 158 (4.2) 
Income (in zip code of residence with reference to FPL)  
 Unknown 61 (1.6) 
 <2 times FPL 910 (24.4) 
 2–4 times FPL 2301 (61.7) 
 >4 times FPL 460 (12.3) 
Metropolitan statistical area  
 Urban 3465 (92.9) 
 Rural 267 (7.2) 
Year of death  
 2000–2003 1362 (36.5) 
 2004–2007 1284 (34.4) 
 2008–2011 1086 (29.1) 
Diagnosis  
 Hematologic malignancies 1542 (41.3) 
 Solid tumors 2190 (58.7) 
No. chronic conditions  
 0 2613 (70.0) 
 1 958 (25.7) 
 ≥2 161 (4.3) 
Hospital type (at last hospitalization before death)  
 Specialty center 2912 (78.0) 
 Nonspecialty center 820 (22.0) 
Distance between home and closest hospital  
 <1 mile 1578 (42.3) 
 1–2.9 miles 888 (23.8) 
 ≥3 miles 1266 (33.9) 
Distance between home and closest specialty hospital  
 <7.5 miles 1373 (36.8) 
 7.5–19.9 miles 1118 (30.0) 
 ≥20 miles 1241 (33.3) 
Distance between home and last hospital  
 <10 miles 1225 (32.82) 
 10–24.9 miles 1298 (34.8) 
 ≥25 miles 1209 (32.4) 
Characteristicn (%)
Death age  
 <5 y 680 (18.2) 
 5–9 y 708 (19.0) 
 10–14 y 749 (20.1) 
 15–21 y 1595 (42.7) 
Insurance  
 HMO 553 (14.8) 
 Public or self 1971 (52.8) 
 Private 1208 (32.4) 
Sex  
 Female 1562 (41.9) 
 Male 2170 (58.2) 
Race and/or ethnicity  
 Non-Hispanic white 1271 (34.1) 
 Hispanic 1695 (45.4) 
 Asian American 350 (9.4) 
 African American 258 (6.9) 
 Other 158 (4.2) 
Income (in zip code of residence with reference to FPL)  
 Unknown 61 (1.6) 
 <2 times FPL 910 (24.4) 
 2–4 times FPL 2301 (61.7) 
 >4 times FPL 460 (12.3) 
Metropolitan statistical area  
 Urban 3465 (92.9) 
 Rural 267 (7.2) 
Year of death  
 2000–2003 1362 (36.5) 
 2004–2007 1284 (34.4) 
 2008–2011 1086 (29.1) 
Diagnosis  
 Hematologic malignancies 1542 (41.3) 
 Solid tumors 2190 (58.7) 
No. chronic conditions  
 0 2613 (70.0) 
 1 958 (25.7) 
 ≥2 161 (4.3) 
Hospital type (at last hospitalization before death)  
 Specialty center 2912 (78.0) 
 Nonspecialty center 820 (22.0) 
Distance between home and closest hospital  
 <1 mile 1578 (42.3) 
 1–2.9 miles 888 (23.8) 
 ≥3 miles 1266 (33.9) 
Distance between home and closest specialty hospital  
 <7.5 miles 1373 (36.8) 
 7.5–19.9 miles 1118 (30.0) 
 ≥20 miles 1241 (33.3) 
Distance between home and last hospital  
 <10 miles 1225 (32.82) 
 10–24.9 miles 1298 (34.8) 
 ≥25 miles 1209 (32.4) 

FPL, federal poverty level; HMO, health maintenance organization.

FIGURE 2

Location of end-of-life care and rates of intensity of end-of-life care and by death age. A, Proportion of final hospitalizations at nonspecialty centers. B, Hospital death. C, Receipt of any medically intense intervention. D, 2 or more intensity indicators. E, Receipt of intravenous chemotherapy. Panel A shows the population proportion at each age. Panels B–E show population proportion (dotted lines) and 95% confidence intervals at each age (solid lines).

FIGURE 2

Location of end-of-life care and rates of intensity of end-of-life care and by death age. A, Proportion of final hospitalizations at nonspecialty centers. B, Hospital death. C, Receipt of any medically intense intervention. D, 2 or more intensity indicators. E, Receipt of intravenous chemotherapy. Panel A shows the population proportion at each age. Panels B–E show population proportion (dotted lines) and 95% confidence intervals at each age (solid lines).

The most common intensity indicators were hospital death (63%), ICU admission (20%), and intubation or mechanical ventilation (20%) (Table 2). Overall, 35% had no intense indicators, 42% had 1, and 23% had ≥2. Twenty-two percent received a medically-intense intervention, 4% cancer-directed therapy, and 0.5% a technology-dependent intervention. Hospital death, receipt of a medically-intense intervention, and ≥2 intensity indicators (but not chemotherapy receipt) showed a bimodal distribution with high rates in young patients, a slightly lower rate in school-age children, and a second peak in the adolescent population (Fig 2 B–E).

TABLE 2

Rates of Each End-of-Life Intensity Indicator (N = 3732)

Intensity Indicatorn (%)
Hospital death 2367 (63.4) 
Medically intense intervention 812 (21.8) 
 ICU admission 763 (20.4) 
 Intubation and/or mechanical ventilation 742 (19.9) 
 CPR 202 (5.4) 
 Hemodialysis 118 (3.2) 
Cancer-directed therapy  
 Inpatient intravenous chemotherapy 148 (4.0) 
Technology-dependent intervention 18 (0.5) 
 Tracheostomy placed 9 (0.24) 
 Gastrostomy tube placed 12 (0.32) 
Total no. intensity indicators  
 0 1316 (35.3) 
 1 1547 (41.5) 
 2 140 (3.8) 
 3 441 (11.8) 
 ≥4 288 (7.7) 
Intensity Indicatorn (%)
Hospital death 2367 (63.4) 
Medically intense intervention 812 (21.8) 
 ICU admission 763 (20.4) 
 Intubation and/or mechanical ventilation 742 (19.9) 
 CPR 202 (5.4) 
 Hemodialysis 118 (3.2) 
Cancer-directed therapy  
 Inpatient intravenous chemotherapy 148 (4.0) 
Technology-dependent intervention 18 (0.5) 
 Tracheostomy placed 9 (0.24) 
 Gastrostomy tube placed 12 (0.32) 
Total no. intensity indicators  
 0 1316 (35.3) 
 1 1547 (41.5) 
 2 140 (3.8) 
 3 441 (11.8) 
 ≥4 288 (7.7) 

In multivariable regression, hospital death, ≥2 intensity indicators, and medically-intense interventions were associated with young (<5 years) and older age (15–21 years) as well as hematologic malignancies (Table 3). In particular, for patients <5 years old (versus patients 5–9 years old) the odds of hospital death were 1.7-fold higher, the odds of a medically-intense intervention were 1.4-fold higher, and the odds for ≥2 intensity indicators were 1.4-fold higher. For patients 15 to 21 years old (versus patients 5–9 years old), the odds of hospital death, medically-intense interventions, and >2 intensity markers were similarly higher. Patients with hematologic malignancies (versus solid tumors) had 3.6-fold higher odds of hospital death, 2.3-fold higher odds of medically-intense intervention, and 2.3-fold higher odds of >2 intensity indicators.

TABLE 3

Adjusted Odds of Receiving Intense End-of-Life Care

Category (Reference)Hospital DeathMedically Intense≥2 Intensity IndicatorsInpatient Intravenous Chemotherapy
OR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)P
Death age (5–9 y)         
 <5 y 1.72 (1.36–2.17) <.0001 1.42 (1.08–1.86) .01 1.37 (1.05–1.78) .02 1.03 (0.61–1.74) .92 
 10–14 y 1.03 (0.82–1.29) .80 1.05 (0.80–1.39) .71 1.07 (0.82–1.39) .63 0.95 (0.56–1.59) .83 
 15–21 y 1.42 (1.16–1.73) .0006 1.40 (1.11–1.77) .01 1.29 (1.02–1.62) .03 0.85 (0.54–1.36) .51 
Insurance (HMO)         
 Private insurance 1.47 (1.17–1.83) .0008 1.09 (0.84–1.42) .52 1.08 (0.84–1.40) .53 1.09 (0.65–1.80) .95 
 Public or self 1.49 (1.20–1.84) .0003 1.17 (0.91–1.50) .22 1.07 (0.84–1.36) .58 0.79 (0.48–1.30) .22 
Sex (Male)         
 Female 1.22 (1.06–1.42) .01 0.98 (0.83–1.16) .84 1.00 (0.85–1.17) .95 1.02 (0.72–1.43) .93 
Race and/or ethnicity (non-Hispanic white)         
 African American 1.43 (1.05–1.94) .02 1.29 (0.92–1.81) .13 1.22 (0.88–1.70) .23 0.82 (0.38–1.78) .61 
 Hispanic 1.43 (1.20–1.70) <.0001 1.23 (1.00–1.50) .05 1.158 (0.97–1.44) .09 0.99 (0.66–1.49) .95 
 Asian American 1.32 (1.01–1.72) .04 1.07 (0.79–1.45) .67 0.95 (0.70–1.29) .74 1.00 (0.54–1.85) .99 
 Other 1.27 (0.88–1.85) .20 1.18 (0.78–1.80) .43 1.05 (0.69–1.59) .83 0.81 (0.32–2.09) .66 
Year of death (2000–2003)         
 2004–2007 1.03 (0.87–1.22) .76 1.13 (0.93–1.38) .21 1.09 (0.90–1.31) .40 1.01 (0.68–1.50) .97 
 2008–2011 1.15 (0.96–1.38) .13 1.33 (1.09–1.63) .01 1.29 (1.06–1.57) .01 1.08 (0.71–1.64) .72 
Diagnosis (solid tumors)         
 Hematologic malignancies 3.56 (3.04–4.17) <.0001 2.31 (1.96–2.68) <.0001 2.25 (1.92–2.65) <.0001 2.21 (1.56–3.12) <.0001 
No. chronic conditions (0 conditions)         
 1 chronic condition 1.27 (1.07–1.51) .01 0.89 (0.74–1.08) .24 0.92 (0.76–1.10) .35 0.85 (0.57–1.25) .40 
 ≥2 0.99 (0.69–1.42) .95 0.84 (0.56–1.26) .40 0.83 (0.56–1.24) .37 0.51 (0.18–1.43) .20 
Last hospital (specialty center)         
 Nonspecialty center 0.91 (0.75–1.09) .29 1.34 (1.09–1.65) .01 1.29 (1.05–1.57) .01 0.56 (0.34–0.94) .03 
Distance last hospital to home (<10 miles)         
 10–24.9 miles 0.89 (0.73–1.05) .14 0.81 (0.66–0.99) .04 0.79 (0.65–0.96) .02 0.79 (0.52–1.22) .29 
 ≥25 miles 0.64 (0.53–0.78) <.0001 0.88 (0.71–1.08) .21 0.86 (0.70–1.05) .13 0.88 (0.58–1.35) .56 
Category (Reference)Hospital DeathMedically Intense≥2 Intensity IndicatorsInpatient Intravenous Chemotherapy
OR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)POR (95% CI)P
Death age (5–9 y)         
 <5 y 1.72 (1.36–2.17) <.0001 1.42 (1.08–1.86) .01 1.37 (1.05–1.78) .02 1.03 (0.61–1.74) .92 
 10–14 y 1.03 (0.82–1.29) .80 1.05 (0.80–1.39) .71 1.07 (0.82–1.39) .63 0.95 (0.56–1.59) .83 
 15–21 y 1.42 (1.16–1.73) .0006 1.40 (1.11–1.77) .01 1.29 (1.02–1.62) .03 0.85 (0.54–1.36) .51 
Insurance (HMO)         
 Private insurance 1.47 (1.17–1.83) .0008 1.09 (0.84–1.42) .52 1.08 (0.84–1.40) .53 1.09 (0.65–1.80) .95 
 Public or self 1.49 (1.20–1.84) .0003 1.17 (0.91–1.50) .22 1.07 (0.84–1.36) .58 0.79 (0.48–1.30) .22 
Sex (Male)         
 Female 1.22 (1.06–1.42) .01 0.98 (0.83–1.16) .84 1.00 (0.85–1.17) .95 1.02 (0.72–1.43) .93 
Race and/or ethnicity (non-Hispanic white)         
 African American 1.43 (1.05–1.94) .02 1.29 (0.92–1.81) .13 1.22 (0.88–1.70) .23 0.82 (0.38–1.78) .61 
 Hispanic 1.43 (1.20–1.70) <.0001 1.23 (1.00–1.50) .05 1.158 (0.97–1.44) .09 0.99 (0.66–1.49) .95 
 Asian American 1.32 (1.01–1.72) .04 1.07 (0.79–1.45) .67 0.95 (0.70–1.29) .74 1.00 (0.54–1.85) .99 
 Other 1.27 (0.88–1.85) .20 1.18 (0.78–1.80) .43 1.05 (0.69–1.59) .83 0.81 (0.32–2.09) .66 
Year of death (2000–2003)         
 2004–2007 1.03 (0.87–1.22) .76 1.13 (0.93–1.38) .21 1.09 (0.90–1.31) .40 1.01 (0.68–1.50) .97 
 2008–2011 1.15 (0.96–1.38) .13 1.33 (1.09–1.63) .01 1.29 (1.06–1.57) .01 1.08 (0.71–1.64) .72 
Diagnosis (solid tumors)         
 Hematologic malignancies 3.56 (3.04–4.17) <.0001 2.31 (1.96–2.68) <.0001 2.25 (1.92–2.65) <.0001 2.21 (1.56–3.12) <.0001 
No. chronic conditions (0 conditions)         
 1 chronic condition 1.27 (1.07–1.51) .01 0.89 (0.74–1.08) .24 0.92 (0.76–1.10) .35 0.85 (0.57–1.25) .40 
 ≥2 0.99 (0.69–1.42) .95 0.84 (0.56–1.26) .40 0.83 (0.56–1.24) .37 0.51 (0.18–1.43) .20 
Last hospital (specialty center)         
 Nonspecialty center 0.91 (0.75–1.09) .29 1.34 (1.09–1.65) .01 1.29 (1.05–1.57) .01 0.56 (0.34–0.94) .03 
Distance last hospital to home (<10 miles)         
 10–24.9 miles 0.89 (0.73–1.05) .14 0.81 (0.66–0.99) .04 0.79 (0.65–0.96) .02 0.79 (0.52–1.22) .29 
 ≥25 miles 0.64 (0.53–0.78) <.0001 0.88 (0.71–1.08) .21 0.86 (0.70–1.05) .13 0.88 (0.58–1.35) .56 

Also in the model, but nonsignificant: zip code–level income. CI, confidence interval; HMO, health maintenance organization; OR, odds ratio.

Nonspecialty center admission was associated with increased odds of medically-intense interventions and ≥2 intensity indicators but decreased odds of intravenous chemotherapy. African American, Hispanic, and Asian American race and/or ethnicity were more likely to have a hospital death. Hospital death, ≥2 intensity indicators, and receipt of medically-intense interventions were higher for patients residing closer to the hospital. After 2008, patients had higher odds of receipt of a medically-intense intervention or ≥2 intense indicators. There was also a significant interaction between age and diagnosis for hospital death, ≥2 intensity indicators, and any medically-intense intervention (all P < .003). At each age, patients with hematologic malignancies had more intense care than those with solid tumors. In general, the highest-intensity patients with hematologic malignancies were older, whereas the highest-intensity patients with solid tumors were younger (data not shown).

Sixty-five percent of pediatric patients dying of cancer in California had at least 1 intensity indicator, 23% ≥2, and 22% received a medically-intense intervention at end of life. These rates were comparable to Ontario rates for most indicators, with ICU admission rate being 20.4% in California versus 21.7% in Ontario, and intravenous chemotherapy rates being 4.0% vs 7.9% (Ontario included outpatient intravenous chemotherapy).22 Hospital death rates differed, with 43.4% in Ontario versus 63.4% in California. The drivers of hospital death rate variation are unknown, but may include different health care systems, availability of home health care, distance from the hospital, and cultural differences. In both studies, greater distance from the hospital was associated with decreased odds of hospital death,22 and the geographic and population density differences between Ontario and California may be contributing to location of death.

The pediatric intensity rates exceed those in Medicare with cancer: 63% of pediatric patients had a hospital death versus 30% of Medicare patients; similarly, 20% of pediatric patients had ICU admission in the last month, compared with fewer than 10% of Medicare patients.29,30 This is unsurprising because cancer diagnoses, prognosis, and child death vary significantly more than death in an older adult. The 5-year survival rates for invasive cancer is as low as 40% among older adults, but ∼80% for children <15 years old.31,32 Therefore, conversations and hope at diagnosis differ between children and older adults, which has implications for transition to noncurative therapy. Parents’ hope does not always reflect prognosis: 88% of parents who acknowledged their child’s condition was terminal still hoped for a cure, and 66% hoped for a long life for their child.33 Additionally, the life-years lost in the death of a child with cancer is greater than in an adult with cancer, potentially influencing how aggressively families and providers try for an elusive cure.34 However, there is growing evidence that intense end-of-life care in older oncology patients is associated with worse end-of-life and bereaved family member outcomes. Adult patients with cancer who die in the hospital experience lower quality of life, and their bereaved caregivers are at higher risk of psychiatric illness than those with home death.11 Similarly, bereaved family members of adult patients with cancer report lower quality of end-of-life care when their family member had an ICU admission or hospital death.10 More research is needed to determine if intense end-of-life care is associated with lower quality of life at end-of-life and worse bereaved family outcomes in the pediatric population.

Not all ages were equally likely to receive intense end-of-life care: there was bimodal distribution with highest intensity rates in <5-year-olds and in the adolescent population, which has not been shown previously. Kassam et al’s22 Ontario study included patients up to 18, and previous studies of intensity in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) did not include younger children, thus limiting age comparison.35,36 One AYA study revealed 15- to 24-year-olds were more likely than 35- to 39-year-olds to be admitted to the ICU,35 and another found that being aged 15 to 21 at diagnosis was associated with more intense care and less hospice use than older age.36 However, researchers for neither study examined how that compared with younger peers.35,36 AYAs have presented challenges to the oncology community, with survival improvements lagging behind other age groups.31,32 This survival gap has been partially attributed to less specialty center access.25,37,38 We have shown that at end-of-life, AYAs also have higher rates of hospitalization at nonspecialty centers than younger children. Palliative care involvement was recently found to be associated with lower rates of intense end-of-life care in AYA (ages 15–26) oncology patients and lower rates of hospital death.39 Early palliative care has also been found to increase life expectancy in adult non–small cell lung carcinoma.40 Therefore, for some conditions, early palliative care may both decrease intensity of end-of-life care and increase life expectancy, highlighting the importance of palliative care involvement. Despite extensive growth in palliative care programs, there is large regional and hospital variation: in 2009, 85% of hospitals with >300 beds had a palliative care program compared with 22% of hospitals with <50 beds.41 How this coverage correlates with end-of-life care of adolescents with cancer is unknown.

Disparities in indicators of intense end-of-life care related to insurance coverage and race and/or ethnicity were found. Insurance other than health maintenance organization insurance was associated with more hospital deaths, which may explain why California has higher hospital death rates than Canada, where a comprehensive, health maintenance organization–like universal system exists. Additionally, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans had higher rates of hospital death. In a previous AYA study, Asian Americans had higher rates of ICU admission,35 and minority race and/or ethnicity has been associated with care intensity in older adult studies.29,30,42,43 However, Kassam et al22 (the Ontario study) did not examine race and/or ethnicity. Higher intensity of end-of-life care in patients with hematologic malignancies have been seen in pediatric,22 AYA,35,36 and older adult studies.29 More work needs to explore if these disparities are consistent with patients’ and families’ preferences or driven by timing of end-of-life conversations, hospice and palliative care availability, or other factors.

In this study, we establish rates of and disparities in intensity of end-of-life care in pediatric patients dying of cancer in the United States. There is evidence that early end-of-life conversations and palliative care involvement leads to less intense end-of-life care.39,44,45 These findings support the AAP statement calling for a palliative approach to patients with terminal conditions.12 However, pediatric palliative care is a relatively new specialty with recent growth, yet significant variation in access persists.2 In this work, we examined 1 group of pediatric patients: children with terminal cancer. The AAP call for a palliative approach to patients with life-threatening illnesses12 applies to the ∼20 000 children who die annually of all disease-related causes.11 In this study, we establish a methodology for studying intensity rates in children dying of disease-related causes. Universal versus disease-specific disparities may help establish if disparities are goal concurrent or due to health care system factors. In particular, we need to explore how palliative care access correlates with intensity of end-of-life care.

This study has limitations to thoughtfully consider. The population-based study is limited to California patients, but because >10% of the United States population resides in California and California is diverse, it has important implications.46 Our study was restricted to patients in the linked death certificate patient discharge database. However, the state’s record linkage is conducted with full access to patients’ information. Additionally, the rates, diagnoses, and age distribution are comparable to Kassam et al’s22 Ontario study, giving face validity to populations and rates. At the time of analysis, the state had only linked 2000 to 2011, so the results do not reflect the most recent changes in policy and treatment. The database does not include billing data, so surrogate ICD-9 codes for ICU admission were used. Not all ICU admissions will include mechanical ventilation, central venous pressure monitoring, or arterial catheterization; therefore, we are probably underestimating ICU admission rates. However, our ICU admission rates were similar to Kassam et al’s22 rates, which did not rely on surrogate ICU markers. Many studies of end-of-life intensity are restricted to patients with known terminal conditions (like relapse) to exclude patients who may have died of treatment-related mortality. Some cases of treatment-related mortality are acute and recovery is expected (provided the patient survives the acute episode), so intense care may be appropriate rather than potentially causing prolonged suffering at the end of life. We do not have such data granularity in OSHPD, but there are 3 reasons that highlight the value of this study despite this limitation. First, Kassam et al22 evaluated treatment-related mortality in sensitivity analysis and had similar findings with or without it. Second, patients with leukemia will have some of the highest treatment-related mortality rates because of chemotherapy intensity. However, meta-analysis revealed that only 22% of deaths in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were due to nonrelapse mortality.47 Third, the National Quality Forum has endorsed many intensity indicators for oncology deaths regardless of cause of death.15 Other intensity indicators (hospice and emergency department use in the last month), are not available in the OSHPD database. However, we focused on inpatient intensity in this study, which may have different drivers than outpatient intensity.

This is the first study in which intensity of end-of-life care in pediatric patients dying of cancer in the United States has been evaluated, and it has been revealed that the majority received a medically intense intervention. Additionally, there were disparities related to age, diagnosis, and race and/or ethnicity. It remains unknown if these rates and disparities are consistent with patient and/or family wishes or result from factors like palliative care access. In this study, we lay the groundwork for studies of pediatric end-of-life care outside of oncology. Understanding how rates differ between diagnoses may determine which disparities are due to patient preference versus the health care system and which groups may need targeted intervention to ensure they receive the care they desire and deserve.

     
  • AAP

    American Academy of Pediatrics

  •  
  • AYA

    adolescent and young adult

  •  
  • CPR

    cardiopulmonary resuscitation

  •  
  • ICD-9

    International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision

  •  
  • OSHPD

    Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development

Dr Johnston conceptualized and designed the study, conducted the initial data analysis, interpreted the data, and drafted the initial manuscript; Drs Alvarez, Sanders, Bhatia, and Chamberlain conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the data, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Ms Saynina acquired the data, conducted the final data analysis, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

FUNDING: Supported by a KL2 Mentored Career Development Award of the Stanford Clinical and Translational Science Award to Spectrum (NIH KL2 TR 001083 and NIH UL1 TR 001085) through salary support for Dr Johnston. The Stanford Center for Policy, Outcomes, and Prevention provided data access, programming, and statistical support.

COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2017-1662.

1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
. Ten leading causes of death and injury.
2013
. Available at: www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html. Accessed October 22, 2015
2
Feudtner
C
,
Womer
J
,
Augustin
R
, et al
.
Pediatric palliative care programs in children’s hospitals: a cross-sectional national survey.
Pediatrics
.
2013
;
132
(
6
):
1063
1070
[PubMed]
3
Wolfe
J
,
Grier
HE
,
Klar
N
, et al
.
Symptoms and suffering at the end of life in children with cancer.
N Engl J Med
.
2000
;
342
(
5
):
326
333
[PubMed]
4
Schenker
Y
,
Arnold
R
.
The next era of palliative care.
JAMA
.
2015
;
314
(
15
):
1565
1566
[PubMed]
5
Weeks
JC
,
Cook
EF
,
O’Day
SJ
, et al
.
Relationship between cancer patients’ predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences.
JAMA
.
1998
;
279
(
21
):
1709
1714
[PubMed]
6
McCarthy
EP
,
Phillips
RS
,
Zhong
Z
,
Drews
RE
,
Lynn
J
.
Dying with cancer: patients’ function, symptoms, and care preferences as death approaches.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2000
;
48
(
suppl
5
):
S110
S121
[PubMed]
7
Yabroff
KR
,
Warren
JL
,
Brown
ML
.
Costs of cancer care in the USA: a descriptive review.
Nat Clin Pract Oncol
.
2007
;
4
(
11
):
643
656
[PubMed]
8
Riley
GF
,
Lubitz
JD
.
Long-term trends in Medicare payments in the last year of life.
Health Serv Res
.
2010
;
45
(
2
):
565
576
[PubMed]
9
Emanuel
EJ
,
Ash
A
,
Yu
W
, et al
.
Managed care, hospice use, site of death, and medical expenditures in the last year of life.
Arch Intern Med
.
2002
;
162
(
15
):
1722
1728
[PubMed]
10
Wright
AA
,
Zhang
B
,
Ray
A
, et al
.
Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment.
JAMA
.
2008
;
300
(
14
):
1665
1673
[PubMed]
11
Wright
AA
,
Keating
NL
,
Balboni
TA
,
Matulonis
UA
,
Block
SD
,
Prigerson
HG
.
Place of death: correlations with quality of life of patients with cancer and predictors of bereaved caregivers’ mental health.
J Clin Oncol
.
2010
;
28
(
29
):
4457
4464
[PubMed]
12
Section on Hospice and Palliative Medicine and Committee on Hospital Care
.
Pediatric palliative care and hospice care commitments, guidelines, and recommendations.
Pediatrics
.
2013
;
132
(
5
):
966
972
[PubMed]
13
Smith
TJ
,
Temin
S
,
Alesi
ER
, et al
.
American society of clinical oncology provisional clinical opinion: the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care.
J Clin Oncol
.
2012
;
30
(
8
):
880
887
14
Field
MJ
,
Behrman
RE
, eds.
Institute of Medicine
,
Board on Health Sciences Policy
,
Committee on Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Children and Their Families
.
When Children Die: Improving Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Children and Their Families
.
Washington, DC
:
National Academies Press
;
2003
15
National Quality Forum
. Home. Available at: www.qualityforum.org/Home.aspx. Accessed April 3, 2015
16
Committee on Approaching Death: Addressing Key End-of-Life Issues
,
Institute of Medicine
.
Dying in America: Improving Quality and Honoring Individual Preferences Near the End of Life
.
Washington, DC
:
The National Academies Press
;
2014
17
Barnato
AE
,
Farrell
MH
,
Chang
C-CH
,
Lave
JR
,
Roberts
MS
,
Angus
DC
.
Development and validation of hospital “end-of-life” treatment intensity measures.
Med Care
.
2009
;
47
(
10
):
1098
1105
[PubMed]
18
Earle
CC
,
Park
ER
,
Lai
B
,
Weeks
JC
,
Ayanian
JZ
,
Block
S
.
Identifying potential indicators of the quality of end-of-life cancer care from administrative data.
J Clin Oncol
.
2003
;
21
(
6
):
1133
1138
[PubMed]
19
Earle
CC
,
Neville
BA
,
Landrum
MB
, et al
.
Evaluating claims-based indicators of the intensity of end-of-life cancer care.
Int J Qual Health Care
.
2005
;
17
(
6
):
505
509
[PubMed]
20
Tang
ST
,
Wu
S-C
,
Hung
Y-N
,
Huang
E-W
,
Chen
J-S
,
Liu
T-W
.
Trends in quality of end-of-life care for Taiwanese cancer patients who died in 2000-2006.
Ann Oncol
.
2009
;
20
(
2
):
343
348
[PubMed]
21
Park
JD
,
Kang
HJ
,
Kim
YA
, et al
.
Trends in the aggressiveness of end-of-life care for Korean pediatric cancer patients who died in 2007-2010.
PLoS One
.
2014
;
9
(
6
):
e99888
[PubMed]
22
Kassam
A
,
Sutradhar
R
,
Widger
K
, et al
.
Predictors of and trends in high-intensity end-of-life care among children with cancer: a population-based study using health services data.
J Clin Oncol
.
2017
;
35
(
2
):
236
242
[PubMed]
23
Benchimol
EI
,
Smeeth
L
,
Guttmann
A
, et al;
RECORD Working Committee
.
The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.
PLoS Med
.
2015
;
12
(
10
):
e1001885
[PubMed]
24
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project
. Appendix A - clinical classification software - diagnoses (January 1980 through September 2015).
2014
. Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/AppendixASingleDX.txt. Accessed November 3, 2015
25
Chamberlain
LJ
,
Pineda
N
,
Winestone
L
, et al
.
Increased utilization of pediatric specialty care: a population study of pediatric oncology inpatients in California.
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
.
2014
;
36
(
2
):
99
107
[PubMed]
26
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program
. AYA site recode/WHO 2008 definition.
2008
. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/ayarecode/aya-who2008.html. Accessed November 29, 2015
27
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
. Prior HHS poverty guidelines and federal register references. Available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/prior-hhs-poverty-guidelines-and-federal-register-references. Accessed December 7, 2015
28
Chamberlain
LJ
,
Chan
J
,
Mahlow
P
,
Huffman
LC
,
Chan
K
,
Wise
PH
.
Variation in specialty care hospitalization for children with chronic conditions in California.
Pediatrics
.
2010
;
125
(
6
):
1190
1199
[PubMed]
29
Earle
CC
,
Neville
BA
,
Landrum
MB
,
Ayanian
JZ
,
Block
SD
,
Weeks
JC
.
Trends in the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life.
J Clin Oncol
.
2004
;
22
(
2
):
315
321
[PubMed]
30
Miesfeldt
S
,
Murray
K
,
Lucas
L
,
Chang
C-H
,
Goodman
D
,
Morden
NE
.
Association of age, gender, and race with intensity of end-of-life care for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer.
J Palliat Med
.
2012
;
15
(
5
):
548
554
[PubMed]
31
Keegan
THM
,
Ries
LAG
,
Barr
RD
, et al;
National Cancer Institute Next Steps for Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Epidemiology Working Group
.
Comparison of cancer survival trends in the United States of adolescents and young adults with those in children and older adults.
Cancer
.
2016
;
122
(
7
):
1009
1016
[PubMed]
32
Bleyer
A
,
O’leary
M
,
Barr
R
,
Ries
LAG
, eds.
Cancer Epidemiology in Older Adolescents and Young Adults 15 to 29 Years of Age, Including SEER Incidence and Survival
.
Bethesda, MD
:
National Cancer Institute
;
2006
33
Kamihara
J
,
Nyborn
JA
,
Olcese
ME
,
Nickerson
T
,
Mack
JW
.
Parental hope for children with advanced cancer.
Pediatrics
.
2015
;
135
(
5
):
868
874
[PubMed]
34
Bleyer
WA
.
The impact of childhood cancer on the United States and the world.
CA Cancer J Clin
.
1990
;
40
(
6
):
355
367
[PubMed]
35
Mack
JW
,
Chen
LH
,
Cannavale
K
,
Sattayapiwat
O
,
Cooper
RM
,
Chao
CR
.
End-of-life care intensity among adolescent and young adult patients with cancer in Kaiser Permanente Southern California.
JAMA Oncol
.
2015
;
1
(
5
):
592
600
[PubMed]
36
Mack
JW
,
Chen
K
,
Boscoe
FP
, et al
.
High intensity of end-of-life care among adolescent and young adult cancer patients in the New York State Medicaid program.
Med Care
.
2015
;
53
(
12
):
1018
1026
[PubMed]
37
Albritton
KH
,
Wiggins
CH
,
Nelson
HE
,
Weeks
JC
.
Site of oncologic specialty care for older adolescents in Utah.
J Clin Oncol
.
2007
;
25
(
29
):
4616
4621
[PubMed]
38
Howell
DL
,
Ward
KC
,
Austin
HD
,
Young
JL
,
Woods
WG
.
Access to pediatric cancer care by age, race, and diagnosis, and outcomes of cancer treatment in pediatric and adolescent patients in the state of Georgia.
J Clin Oncol
.
2007
;
25
(
29
):
4610
4615
[PubMed]
39
Snaman
JM
,
Kaye
EC
,
Lu
JJ
,
Sykes
A
,
Baker
JN
.
Palliative care involvement is associated with less intensive end-of-life care in adolescent and young adult oncology patients.
J Palliat Med
.
2017
;
20
(
5
):
509
516
[PubMed]
40
Temel
JS
,
Greer
JA
,
Muzikansky
A
, et al
.
Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.
N Engl J Med
.
2010
;
363
(
8
):
733
742
[PubMed]
41
Center to Advance Palliative Care
. Growth of palliative care in U.S. hospitals 2011 snapshot.
2011
. Available at: www.hhnmag.com/ext/resources/inc-hhn/pdfs/resources/capc-growth-analysis-snapshot-2011.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2016
42
Sharma
G
,
Freeman
J
,
Zhang
D
,
Goodwin
JS
.
Trends in end-of-life ICU use among older adults with advanced lung cancer.
Chest
.
2008
;
133
(
1
):
72
78
[PubMed]
43
Guadagnolo
BA
,
Liao
K-P
,
Giordano
SH
,
Elting
LS
,
Shih
Y-CT
.
Variation in intensity and costs of care by payer and race for patients dying of cancer in Texas: an analysis of registry-linked Medicaid, Medicare, and dually eligible claims data.
Med Care
.
2015
;
53
(
7
):
591
598
[PubMed]
44
Mack
JW
,
Cronin
A
,
Keating
NL
, et al
.
Associations between end-of-life discussion characteristics and care received near death: a prospective cohort study.
J Clin Oncol
.
2012
;
30
(
35
):
4387
4395
[PubMed]
45
Ahluwalia
SC
,
Tisnado
DM
,
Walling
AM
, et al
.
Association of early patient-physician care planning discussions and end-of-life care intensity in advanced cancer.
J Palliat Med
.
2015
;
18
(
10
):
834
841
[PubMed]
46
US Census Bureau
. Data. Available at: www.census.gov/data.html. Accessed February 15, 2016
47
Blanco
E
,
Beyene
J
,
Maloney
AM
, et al
.
Non-relapse mortality in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Leuk Lymphoma
.
2012
;
53
(
5
):
878
885
[PubMed]

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.