Many patients with cancer approaching the end of life (EOL) continue to receive treatments that are unlikely to provide meaningful clinical benefit, potentially causing more harm than good. This is called overtreatment at the EOL. Overtreatment harms patients by causing side-effects, increasing health care costs, delaying important discussions about and preparation for EOL care, and occasionally accelerating death. Overtreatment can also strain health care resources, reducing those available for palliative care services, and cause moral distress for clinicians and treatment teams. This article reviews the factors contributing to the overtreatment of patients with cancer at the EOL. It addresses the complex range of social, psychological, and cognitive factors affecting oncologists, patients, and patients' family members that contribute to this phenomenon. This intricate and complex dynamic complicates the task of reducing overtreatment. Addressing these driving factors requires a cooperative approach involving oncologists, oncology nurses, professional societies, public policy, and public education. We therefore discuss approaches and strategies to mitigate cultural and professional influences driving overtreatment, reduce the seduction of new technologies, improve clinician-patient communication regarding therapeutic options for patients approaching the EOL, and address cognitive biases that can contribute to overtreatment at the EOL.

Vaccination is the primary public health strategy to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Although solid tumor and hematologic patients are at higher risk of serious COVID-19-related complications, data on immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines in this patient cohort are particularly scarce. The present study, therefore, aimed at the standardized determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody titers among non-vaccinated versus vaccinated solid tumor and hematologic patients who are under clinical observation or under treatment at the University Hospital Krems. Standardized anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody titers of a total of 441 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Our results show that antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein are significantly higher in solid tumor versus hematologic patients. While SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers were equal among sexes, an age-dependent decrease was observed. Of note, our studies additionally show that complete vaccination represents a valuable predictor for high anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in solid tumor and hematologic patients. In summary, to date, this is one of the largest studies to comprehensively evaluate the impact of various COVID-19 vaccines on anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody production in solid tumor and hematologic patients. Our findings aim to support future vaccination strategies in these highly vulnerable patients, including vaccination booster programs and alternative protective approaches.

Systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) for advanced cancer patients with limited prognosis before death is associated with high toxicity and reduced quality of life. Guidelines discourage this approach as low-value care. However, a significant number of patients continue to receive SACT in the last 30 days of life. A retrospective study was carried out at the University Hospital Krems, encompassing the analysis of patients who were diagnosed with a solid tumor and died between 2017 and 2021, with a particular focus on the use of end-of-life (EOL) SACT. A total of 685 patients were included in the study. SACT was applied in 342 (49.9%) patients, of whom 143 (41.8%, total population: 20.9%) patients received SACT within the last 30 days of life. Median time from last SACT to death was 44.5 days. The analysis of potential factors impacting the administration of EOL SACT revealed the following significant findings: type of SACT [P < 0.001, targeted therapy odds ratio (OR) 5.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.26-11.48; chemotherapy/targeted therapy OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.47-8.82; immune checkpoint inhibitor OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.37-3.92], no referral to palliative care (PC) (P = 0.009, OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.16-2.96), no admission to PC ward (P < 0.001, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.67-4.35), and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (≥2, P < 0.001, OR 3.35, 95% CI 1.93-5.83). The timing of SACT near the EOL is significantly influenced by several factors, including the type of SACT, referral to PC services, admission to PC unit, and ECOG performance status. These findings underscore the complexity of treatment decisions in advanced cancer care and highlight the need for personalized, patient-centered approaches that consider both clinical and patient-related factors to optimize care at the EOL.

Opinion Statement: Systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) includes different treatment modalities that can be effective in treating cancer. However, in the case of disease progression, cancers might become incurable and SACT might reach its limits. In the case of incurable cancers, SACT is often given in a palliative setting, with the goal of improving the patients’ quality of life (QOL) and their survival. In contrast, especially for patients who approach end of life (EOL), such treatments might do more harm than good. Patients receiving EOL anticancer treatments often experience belated palliative care referrals. The use of systemic chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and poor prognosis approaching the EOL has been associated with significant toxicity and worse QOL compared to best supportive care. Therefore, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has discouraged this practice, and it is considered a metric of low-value care by Choosing Wisely (Schnipper et al. in J Clin Oncol 4;30(14):1715-24). Recommendations of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) suggest that especially chemotherapy and immunotherapy should be avoided in the last few weeks of the patients’ lives. In this narrative review, we screened the current literature for the impact of SACT and factors predicting the use of SACT near the EOL with discussion on this topic.