Feasibility of computer-based self-administered cancer-specific geriatric assessment in older patients with gastrointestinal malignancy

Implementation of a mobile inpatient quality of life (QoL) assessment for oncology nursing

PURPOSE

Cancer patients suffer from a variety of symptoms, but little is known about changes during hospitalization and symptom burden at discharge. We implemented an electronic quality of life (QoL) assessment used by the nursing team in routine inpatient care. Feasibility, acceptance, and the course of QoL were investigated.

METHODS

A self-administered electronic questionnaire based on the EQ-5D and the EORTC QLQ-C30 was applied in clinical routine. Cancer patients were approached by the nursing staff to complete the QoL assessment twice, at admission and at the day of discharge. Both the feedback of the nursing staff as well as characteristics of participants were used to evaluate the electronic assessment.

RESULTS

Out of 210 patients from an oncologic ward, 85 patients (40 %) were invited to participate, 95 % of whom (n = 81) agreed to participate. Participation rate depended on the day of admission, the presence of the coordinating nurse, the overall morbidity assessed by patient clinical complexity level, and the patient age. Forty-six patients (56 %) asked for assistance in completing the questionnaire. Patients older than 53 years and male patients were more likely to need assistance. Twenty-two percent of the nursing staff (n = 5) use the information assessed for individual patient care. Fifty-two percent (n = 12) rated the additional workload as very little or little and 68 % (n = 15) agreed that handling for the patient was easy. Global QoL improved during the stay. Most severe symptoms at admission included fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and insomnia.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that it is feasible to implement and use an electronic QoL assessment by the nursing staff in routine inpatient cancer care. Obstacles and worries of staff members have to be considered when further developing this program.

Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment with cancer patients in the hospital and at home

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) provide a more comprehensive picture of patients' quality of life than do mere physicians' ratings. Electronic data collection of PRO offers several advantages and allows assessments at patients' homes as well. This study reports on patients' personal internet use, their attitudes towards electronic and web-based PRO assessment (clinic-ePRO and home-ePRO) and the feasibility of these two assessment modes.

METHODS

At the Medical University of Innsbruck and Kufstein County Hospital, cancer patients who participated in clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO were asked to complete a comprehensive evaluation form on their personal internet usage, attitudes towards and the feasibility of routine clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO with the Computer-based Health Evaluation System (CHES) software.

RESULTS

In total, 113 patients completed the evaluation form for clinic-ePRO (Ø 45 years, SD 14) and 45 patients for home-ePRO (Ø 58 years, SD 10; 33.1 per cent inclusion rate for this sample). Most patients expressed willingness to complete routine clinic-ePRO assessments in the future (94.7 per cent of clinic-ePRO patients and 84.4 per cent of home-ePRO patients) and to discuss their data with attending physicians (82.2 per cent, home-ePRO patients only). Overall, patients preferred the software over paper-pencil questionnaires (67.2 per cent of clinic-ePRO patients and 60 per cent of home-ePRO patients) and experienced it as easy to use. Only a few minor suggestions for improvement were made (e.g. adjustable font sizes).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO was in general shown to be feasible and well accepted. However, to be more inclusive in the implementation of clinic-ePRO/home-ePRO, educational programs concerning their particular benefit in oncology practice potentially could enhance patients' attitudes towards, and consequently their acceptance of and compliance with electronic PRO assessments.

A prospective study of electronic quality of life assessment using tablet devices during and after treatment of head and neck cancers

OBJECTIVES

Electronic data collection is increasingly used for quality of life (QOL) assessments in the field of oncology. It is important to assess the feasibility of these new data capture technologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients at our institution who were 18 years or older with a pathological diagnosis of head and neck cancer were prospectively enrolled. Each patient completed two questionnaires [EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-H&N35] administered on a touch-screen tablet device (iPad) at initial consult, during treatment, at the completion of treatment and at each subsequent follow up visit for one year after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients were included in this study. Although all patients completed the surveys at the initial consult, 86% of initially enrolled patients completed surveys at the end of radiation treatment, and 48% of initially enrolled patients completed surveys by the fourth follow-up visit. Average time to complete the survey for all patients over all time points was 9.8 min (standard deviation 6.1). Age as a continuous variable was significantly associated with time for survey completion (p<0.001), with older age associated with longer survey completion times.

CONCLUSION

QOL assessment using tablet devices in head and neck cancer patients is feasible, but may be more challenging in elderly patients. Patients ⩾70 years old may benefit from more assistance with electronic forms and should be allotted more time for completing tablet-based QOL surveys.

International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer

PURPOSE

To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer.

METHODS

SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment–related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care.

RESULTS

GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another.

CONCLUSION

There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.

How to implement a geriatric assessment in your clinical practice

Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. Other health conditions, changes in functional status, and use of multiple medications change the risks and benefits of cancer treatment for older adults. Several international organizations, such as the International Society of Geriatric Oncology, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, recommend the conduct of a geriatric assessment (GA) for older adults with cancer to help select the most appropriate treatment and identify any underlying undetected medical, functional, and psychosocial issues that can interfere with treatment. The aim of this review is to describe what a GA is and how to implement it in daily clinical practice for older adults with cancer in the oncology setting. We provide an overview of commonly used tools. Key considerations in performing the GA include the resources available (staff, space, and time), patient population (who will be assessed), what GA tools to use, and clinical follow-up (who will be responsible for using the GA results for developing care plans and who will provide follow-up care). Important challenges in implementing GA in clinical practice include not having easy and timely access to geriatric expertise, patient burden of the additional hospital visits, and establishing collaboration between the GA team and oncologists regarding expectations of the population referred for GA and expected outcomes of the GA. Finally, we provide some possible interventions for problems identified during the GA.

International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer

PURPOSE

To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer.

METHODS

SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment–related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care.

RESULTS

GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another.

CONCLUSION

There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.

Determining chemotherapy tolerance in older patients with cancer

Older adults with cancer constitute a heterogeneous group of patients who pose unique challenges for oncology care. One major concern is how to identify patients who are at a higher risk for chemotherapy intolerance, because a standard oncology workup may not always be able to distinguish an older individual's level of risk for treatment-related complications. Geriatric oncologists incorporate tools used in the field of geriatrics, and have developed the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment to enhance the standard oncology workup. This assessment pinpoints problems with daily activities, comorbidities, medications, nutritional status, cognitive function, psychological state, and social support systems, all of which are risk factors for treatment vulnerability in older adults with cancer. Additional tools that also serve to predict chemotherapy toxicity in older patients with cancer are now available to identify patients at higher risk for morbidity and mortality. Together, these instruments complement the standard oncology workup by providing a global assessment, thereby guiding therapeutic interventions that may improve a patient's quality of life and clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of single agent or combination adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with colon cancer: a Canadian cancer institute experience

BACKGROUND

The pattern of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) use, toxicity profile, and survival benefit in elderly patients with colon cancer (CC) is unclear. We sought to (1) determine whether patients ≥ 65 years with stage III CC were offered single-agent or combination AC, (2) evaluate the reason for selecting single-agent versus combination AC, (3) evaluate the toxicity profile of single-agent and combination AC in the elderly, and (4) determine whether a survival benefit exists for elderly patients receiving combination AC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of records of patients ≥ 65 years diagnosed with stage III CC from 2004 to 2010 was performed to identify baseline characteristics, AC protocols, toxicity, dose intensity, and survival.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-eight patients ≥ 65 years were diagnosed and treated with AC from 2004 to 2010. Of these patients, 178 were treated with single-agent AC and 90 were treated with combination AC. The most common reasons for choosing single-agent AC were patient preference, comorbidities, and lack of drug coverage. For each year over 65 years, the odds of receiving combination over single-agent AC decreased by 22%. There were more dose delays, dose reductions, and early chemotherapy discontinuation in the combination AC group because of hematologic toxicity. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 73% in patients who received single-agent AC compared with 84% in those who received combination AC. There was no difference in cancer-related deaths between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients treated with AC for stage III CC, single-agent AC is used more frequently than combination AC, based on age, comorbidities, and patient choice. Toxicity with combination AC in elderly patients is high. No survival benefit was seen with combination AC over single-agent AC.

Phase I study of carboplatin combined with pemetrexed for elderly patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of carboplatin plus pemetrexed for elderly patients (≥75 years) with chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

Patients received escalated doses of carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve of 4 (Level 1) or 5 (Level 2) plus pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Dose escalation was decided according to whether dose-limiting toxicity occurred in the first cycle of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (6 at Level 1, 14 at Level 2) were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in patients at Level 1 or the first six patients at Level 2, and therefore the combination of carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve of 5 plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m(2) was considered to be the recommended dose. Among a total of 14 patients in Level 2, only 1 patient experienced dose-limiting toxicity: Grade 3 febrile neutropenia and urticaria. The major toxicities were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia. Liver dysfunction, fatigue and anorexia were also common, but generally manageable. Six patients showed partial responses, giving the overall response rate of 30%. The median progression-free survival period was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval 2.9-6.7 months).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve of 5 plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m(2) was determined as the recommended dose in chemotherapy-naïve elderly patients (≥75 years) with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, in view of overall safety and tolerability.

In Reply

It remains challenging to incorporate comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) into prospective clinical trials, but efforts continue to test the efficacy of CGA-guided interventions for information about how the CGA data should be utilized to modify treatment.