A mini geriatric assessment helps treatment decision in elderly patients with digestive cancer. A pilot study

Research priorities to address polypharmacy in older adults with cancer

Polypharmacy poses a significant public health problem that disproportionately affects older adults (≥65 years) since this population represents the largest consumers of medications. Clinicians caring for older adults with cancer must rely on evidence to understand polypharmacy and its implications, not only to communicate with patients and other healthcare providers, but also because of the significant interplay between polypharmacy, cancer, cancer-related treatment, and clinical outcomes. Interest in polypharmacy is rising because of its prevalence, the origins and facilitating factors behind it, and the direct and indirect clinical outcomes associated with it. The growing body of publications focused on polypharmacy in older adults with cancer demonstrates that this is a significant area of research; however, limited evidence exists to guide medication use (e.g., prescribing, administration) in this population. Currently, research priorities aimed at polypharmacy in the field of geriatric oncology lack clarity. We identified current gaps in the literature in order to establish research priorities for polypharmacy in older adults with cancer. The five research priorities-Polypharmacy Methodology and Definitions, Suboptimal Medication Use, Comorbidities and Geriatric Syndromes, Underrepresented Groups, and Polypharmacy Interventions-highlight critical areas for future research to improve outcomes for older adults with cancer.

Interventions to reduce polypharmacy and optimize medication use in older adults with cancer

The use of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is an increasingly common, concerning public health issue in older adults, and a concurrent cancer diagnosis only further escalates the prevalence and complexity. Polypharmacy and PIM use has been associated with negative patient outcomes, including falls, chemotherapy toxicities and other adverse events, postoperative complications, frailty, functional impairment, and shortened survival. Despite the recognition of the harms, the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIM use continues to rise due to a lack of standardized identification and intervention methods. Efforts to reduce the prevalence have included use of explicit PIM screening tools (e.g., Beers criteria), comprehensive medication reviews, and deprescribing algorithms. However, these efforts are not widespread and the research on the effectiveness of such interventions is limited. To better understand what is known, this paper summarized available studies evaluating the effect of interventions on reducing the burden of polypharmacy/PIMs and provided recommendations to guide further practice models to reduce the negative consequences associated with polypharmacy and PIM use. Furthermore, we aim to establish a framework for clinical practice and to highlight areas for future intervention-based research to improve outcomes for older adults with cancer.

Integration of geriatric assessment into clinical oncology practice: A scoping review

Sixty percent of newly diagnosed cancers occur in older adults and more complex planning is required to sustain quality care for older populations. Individualized care incorporating geriatric assessment can predict early mortality and treatment toxicity for older cancer patients. We mapped and summarized the available evidence on the integration of geriatric assessment into clinical oncology practice, and ascertained which domains have been implemented. We systematically searched bibliographic databases and trial registries for reports of clinical studies, clinical practice guidelines, systematic and non-systematic reviews, and grey literature published in English. We gathered data on study characteristics, geriatric domains and strategies evaluated, and relevant study objectives and findings. From a total of 10,124 identified citations, 38 articles met our eligibility criteria, 3 of which were clinical practice guidelines. Nearly half of these articles came from the United States. Domains of the geriatric assessment implemented in studies ranged from 1 to 12, with varied combinations. We identified 27 studies on strategies for implementing geriatric assessment and 24 studies on feasibility of implementing geriatric assessment, into clinical oncology practice. We also identified 3 main geriatric assessment models: 2 from the United States and 1 from Australia. Furthermore, we identified 2 reviews that reported varied components of geriatric assessment models. There is increasingly robust evidence to implement formal geriatric assessment in oncology practice. There remains a great deal of variation in the tools recommended to address each of the domains in a geriatric assessment, with only 1 guideline (American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline) settling on a specific best practice. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/mec93.

The impact of early comprehensive geriatric screening on the readmission rate in an acute geriatric ward: a quasi-experimental study

Background

Unplanned readmission is an important healthcare quality issue. We studied the effect of a comprehensive geriatric screen (CGS) in the early admission course followed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment on readmission rates in elderly patients.

Methods

This quasi-experimental study with a historical comparison group was conducted in the geriatric ward of a referral centre in northern Taiwan. Older adults (aged > = 65 y/o) admitted from June 2013 to December 2013 were recruited for the geriatric screen group (N = 377). Patients admitted to the same ward from July 2011 to June 2012 were selected for the historical group (N = 380). The CGS was administered within the first 48 h after admission and was followed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Confounding risk factors included age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, Barthel index score and medical utilization (length of stay and number of admissions), which were controlled using logistic regression models. We also developed a scoring system to identify the group that would potentially benefit the most from the early CGS.

Results

The 30-day readmission rate was significantly lower in the early CGS group than in the historical comparison group (11.4% vs 16.9%, p = 0.03). After adjusting for confounding variables, the hazard ratio of the early CGS group was 0.64 (95% CI 0.43–0.95). After scoring the potential benefit to the patients in the early CGS group, the log rank test showed a significant difference (p = 0.001 in the high-potential group and p = 0.98 in the low-potential group).

Conclusion

An early CGS followed by a CGA may significantly reduce the 30-day readmission rate of elderly patients.

A Practical Guide to Geriatric Syndromes in Older Adults With Cancer: A Focus on Falls, Cognition, Polypharmacy, and Depression

Geriatric syndromes are multifactorial conditions that are prevalent in older adults. Geriatric syndromes are believed to develop when an individual experiences accumulated impairments in multiple systems that compromise their compensatory ability. In older adults with cancer, the presence of a geriatric syndrome is common and may increase the complexity of cancer treatment. In addition, the physiologic stress of cancer and cancer treatment may precipitate or exacerbate geriatric syndromes. Common geriatric syndromes include falls, cognitive syndromes and delirium, depression, and polypharmacy. In the oncology setting, the presence of geriatric syndromes is relevant; falls and cognitive problems have been shown to be predictive of chemotherapy toxicity and overall survival. Polypharmacy and depression are more common in older adults with cancer compared with the general geriatric population. Multiple screening tools exist to identify falls, cognitive problems, polypharmacy, and depression in older adults and can be applied to the oncology setting to identify patients at risk. When recognized, several interventions exist that could be considered for this vulnerable population. We review the available evidence of four geriatric syndromes in the oncology setting, including clinical implications, validated screening tools, potential supportive care, and therapeutic interventions.

Polypharmacy in elderly cancer patients: Challenges and the way clinical pharmacists can contribute in resource-limited settings

The aim of this study was to address the problems associated with polypharmacy in elderly cancer patients and to highlight the role of pharmacists in such cases in resource-limited settings. A narrative review of existing literature was performed to summarize the evidence regarding the impact of polypharmacy in elderly cancer patients and the pharmaceutical strategies to manage it. This review emphasizes the significance of polypharmacy, which is often ignored in real clinical practice. Polypharmacy in the elderly cancer population is mainly due to: chemotherapy with one or more neoplastic agents for cancer treatment, treatment for adverse drug reactions due to neoplastic agents, the patient's comorbid conditions, or drug interactions. The role of the clinical pharmacist in specialized oncology hospitals or oncology departments of tertiary care hospitals is well established; however, this is not the case in many developing countries. A clinical pharmacist can contribute to solving the problems associated with polypharmacy by identifying the risks associated with polypharmacy and its management in resource-limited settings. As in many developed countries, the involvement of a clinical pharmacist in cancer care for elderly patients may play a vital role in the recognition and management of polypharmacy-related problems. Further research can be conducted to support this role.

Multidisciplinary development of the Geriatric Core Dataset for clinical research in older patients with cancer: A French initiative with international survey

BACKGROUND

To define a core set of geriatric data to be methodically collected in clinical cancer trials of older adults, enabling comparison across trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Following a consensus approach, a panel of 14 geriatricians from oncology clinics identified seven domains of importance in geriatric assessment. Based on the international recommendations, geriatricians selected the mostly commonly used tools/items for geriatric assessment by domain (January-October 2015). The Geriatric Core Dataset (G-CODE) was progressively developed according to RAND appropriateness ratings and feedback during three successive Delphi rounds (July-September 2016). The face validity of the G-CODE was assessed with two large panels of health professionals (55 national and 42 international experts) involved both in clinical practice and cancer trials (March-September 2017).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

After the last Delphi round, the tools/items proposed for the G-CODE were the following: (1) social assessment: living alone or support requested to stay at home; (2) functional autonomy: Activities of Daily Living (ADL) questionnaire and short instrumental ADL questionnaire; (3) mobility: Timed Up and Go test; (4) nutrition: weight loss during the past 6 months and body mass index; (5) cognition: Mini-Cog test; (6) mood: mini-Geriatric Depression Scale and (7) comorbidity: updated Charlson Comorbidity Index. More than 70% of national experts (42 from 20 cities) and international experts (31 from 13 countries) participated. National and international surveys showed good acceptability of the G-CODE. Specific points discussed included age-year cut-off, threshold of each tool/item and information about social support, but no additional item was proposed.

CONCLUSION

We achieved formal consensus on a set of geriatric data to be collected in cancer trials of older patients. The dissemination and prospective use of the G-CODE is needed to assess its utility.

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in geriatric oncology

Polypharmacy is a highly prevalent problem in older persons, and is challenging to assess and improve due to variations in definitions of the problem and the heterogeneous methods of medication review and reduction. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence regarding the prevalence and impact of polypharmacy in geriatric oncology patients and to provide recommendations for assessment and management. Polypharmacy has somewhat variably been incorporated into geriatric assessment studies in geriatric oncology, and polypharmacy has not been consistently evaluated as a predictor of negative outcomes in patients with cancer. Once screened, interventions for polypharmacy are even more uncertain. There is a great need to create standardized interventions to improve polypharmacy in geriatrics, and particularly in geriatric oncology. The process of deprescribing is aimed at reducing medications for which real or potential harm outweighs benefit, and there are numerous methods to determine which medications are candidates for deprescribing. However, deprescribing approaches have not been evaluated in older patients with cancer. Ultimately, methods to identify polypharmacy will need to be clearly defined and validated, and interventions to improve medication use will need to be based on clearly defined and standardized methods.

Frailty Markers and Treatment Decisions in Patients Seen in Oncogeriatric Clinics: Results from the ASRO Pilot Study

Background

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is the gold standard to help oncologists select the best cancer treatment for their older patients. Some authors have suggested that the concept of frailty could be a more useful approach in this population. We investigated whether frailty markers are associated with treatment recommendations in an oncogeriatric clinic.

Methods

This prospective study included 70 years and older patients with solid tumors and referred for an oncogeriatric assessment. The CGA included nine domains: autonomy, comorbidities, medication, cognition, nutrition, mood, neurosensory deficits, falls, and social status. Five frailty markers were assessed (nutrition, physical activity, energy, mobility, and strength). Patients were categorized as Frail (three or more frailty markers), pre-frail (one or two frailty markers), or not-frail (no frailty marker). Treatment recommendations were classified into two categories: standard treatment with and without any changes and supportive/palliative care. Multiple logistic regression models were used to analyze factors associated with treatment recommendations.

Results

217 patients, mean age 83 years (± Standard deviation (SD) 5.3), were included. In the univariate analysis, number of frailty markers, grip strength, physical activity, mobility, nutrition, energy, autonomy, depression, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Scale of Performance Status (ECOG-PS), and falls were significantly associated with final treatment recommendations. In the multivariate analysis, the number of frailty markers and basic Activities of Daily Living (ADL) were significantly associated with final treatment recommendations (p<0.001 and p = 0.010, respectively).

Conclusion

Frailty markers are associated with final treatment recommendations in older cancer patients. Longitudinal studies are warranted to better determine their use in a geriatric oncology setting.

Treating older adults with cancer: geriatric perspectives

The proportion of older adults (age 65 and older) in oncology practices continues to increase. Older adults present with unique issues that complicate management decisions and evidence from randomized clinical trials to inform management of these patients is lacking. Despite this, principles of geriatric medicine need to be incorporated into oncology practice to provide optimal individualized care to patients. There is increasing evidence from observational studies that geriatric assessment (GA) strategies can be applied in oncology, can help predict treatment outcomes, and can inform supportive care management for older adults. In this review, we discuss the principles of GA and their use in older adults with cancer. In addition, considerations on when to refer to a geriatrician and issues related to management of vulnerable older adults will be addressed.

Geriatric oncology: problems with under-treatment within this population

We are currently faced with an aging population, which is rapidly growing worldwide. Two thirds of cancer occurs in the over 65-year age group. Societal conceptions from the past have created ageist stereotypes; old age is associated with frailty and the elderly are perceived to be destined for deterioration and loss of independence. Cancer within the elderly is also subject to these stereotypes, with elderly cancer patients considered by some not as likely to recover as younger patients with cancer. We summarise and review the current concerns regarding elderly management and treatments utilised for the management of oncological disease in the elderly, and discuss the impact of under-treatment within this population.

Chemotherapy Regimen in Nonagenarian Cancer Patients: A Bi-Institutional Experience

BACKGROUND

The elderly population in Western countries is growing and constitutes a public health issue. Concomitantly, age-related diseases such as cancer increase. There are few data on the efficacy, tolerability and toxicity of specific anticancer therapy in the very elderly patients; therefore, their management is not standardized.

METHODS

In this bi-institutional study, we reviewed medical records of patients who received or continued specific anticancer therapy beyond the age of 90 years. Geriatric assessment was not reported for our patients. Twelve patients were enrolled. Their general health condition was good, and half of them were living in elderly institutions. Ten patients had a solid tumor and 2 were treated for hematological malignancies. Most were diagnosed with a locally advanced or metastatic disease, and the goal of treatment was curative for only 1 patient. Six patients received chemotherapy as first-line treatment, 4 patients received targeted therapy and 2 received concomitant chemoradiation. Four patients received a second-line treatment.

RESULTS

Despite a significant reduction in treatment posology in half of the patients, 8 acute grade 3/4 toxicities were reported and 2 patients died of treatment-related septic shock. Median duration of first-line treatment was 3.2 months, and progression-free survival ranged from 18 to 311 days. Overall survival ranged from 18 days to 11 years.

CONCLUSION

Aging is a heterogeneous process, and management of elderly patients is a multidisciplinary approach. Geriatric assessment helps to identify older patients with a higher risk of morbidity/mortality and allows to assess the risks and benefits of specific anticancer therapy. The choice of treatment should be based primarily on the expected symptomatic benefit, and treatment should not compromise the quality of life.

Expert consensus panel guidelines on geriatric assessment in oncology

Despite consensus guidelines on best practice in the care of older patients with cancer, geriatric assessment (GA) has yet to be optimally integrated into the field of oncology in most countries. There is a relative lack of consensus in the published literature as to the best approach to take, and there is a degree of uncertainty as to how integration of geriatric medicine principles might optimally predict patient outcomes. The aim of the current study was to obtain consensus on GA in oncology to inform the implementation of a geriatric oncology programme. A four-round Delphi process was employed. The Delphi method is a structured group facilitation process, using multiple iterations to gain consensus on a given topic. Consensus was reached on the optimal assessment method and interventions required for the commonly employed domains of GA. Other aspects of GA, such as screening methods and age cut-off for assessment, represented a higher degree of disagreement. The expert panel employed in this study clearly identified the criteria that should be included in a clinical geriatric oncology programme. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines, this may prove useful in the care of older cancer patients.

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.

Management of patients over 80 years of age treated with resection for localised colon cancer: results from a French referral centre

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on management of very elderly colon cancer patients, especially concerning the parameters of therapeutic decisions and the role of geriatricians.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients over 80 years of age who underwent surgery for a localised colon cancer in a French academic hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 176 patients underwent surgery (postoperative morbidity and mortality rates: 25% and 6.7%). Adjuvant chemotherapy was discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting for 91% of stage III patients, but only 13.5% of them were treated. Twenty-five patients relapsed: 19 were discussed at the multidisciplinary meeting and 16 were treated (5 had a metastasectomy). Despite their increase with time, geriatric assessments were infrequent, 17% (33% after 2006), and had no impact on postoperative morbi-mortality. Median overall survival and recurrence-free survival were 65.3 months and 65.1 months, respectively. Age, emergency surgery, and Charlson comorbidity index were independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

Selected elderly colon cancer patients have significant access to surgery. However, postoperative morbi-mortality rates remain high and adjuvant chemotherapy rarely prescribed. Perioperative geriatric assessment, especially before surgery, should be routinely proposed to these patients to evaluate its impact on postoperative morbi-mortality and prescription of adjuvant treatment.

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.

Treatment of colorectal cancer in older patients: International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) consensus recommendations 2013

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in Europe and worldwide, with the peak incidence in patients >70 years of age. However, as the treatment algorithms for the treatment of patients with CRC become ever more complex, it is clear that a significant percentage of older CRC patients (>70 years) are being less than optimally treated. This document provides a summary of an International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) task force meeting convened in Paris in 2013 to update the existing expert recommendations for the treatment of older (geriatric) CRC patients published in 2009 and includes overviews of the recent data on epidemiology, geriatric assessment as it relates to surgery and oncology, and the ability of older CRC patients to tolerate surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, treatment of their metastatic disease including palliative chemotherapy with and without the use of the biologics, and finally the use of adjuvant and palliative radiotherapy in the treatment of older rectal cancer patients. An overview of each area was presented by one of the task force experts and comments invited from other task force members.

The effect of a geriatric evaluation on treatment decisions for older cancer patients--a systematic review

AIM

The aim of this systematic review is to summarise all available data on the effect of a geriatric evaluation on the multidisciplinary treatment of older cancer patients, focussing on oncologic treatment decisions and the implementation of non-oncologic interventions.

METHODS

A systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies on the effect of a geriatric evaluation on oncologic and non-oncologic treatment for older cancer patients.

RESULTS

Literature search identified 1654 reports (624 from Medline and 1030 from Embase), of which 10 studies were included in the review. Three studies used a geriatric consultation while seven used a geriatric assessment performed by a cancer specialist, healthcare worker or (research) nurse. Six studies addressed a change in oncologic treatment, the initial treatment plan was modified in a median of 39% of patients after geriatric evaluation, of which two thirds resulted in less intensive treatment. Seven studies focused on the implementation of non-oncologic interventions based on the results of the geriatric evaluation; all but one reported that interventions were suggested for over 70% of patients, even in studies that did not focus specifically on frail older patients. In the other study, implementation of non-oncologic interventions was left to the cancer specialist's discretion.

CONCLUSION

A geriatric evaluation has significant impact on oncologic and non-oncologic treatment decisions in older cancer patients and deserves consideration in the oncologic work-up for these patients.

The relevance of a geriatric assessment for elderly patients with a haematological malignancy--a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Geriatric assessment is increasingly used to assess the health status of older cancer patients. We set out to assemble all available evidence on the relevance of a geriatric assessment in the treatment of older patients with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

A systematic Medline and Embase search for studies in which a geriatric assessment was used to detect health issues or to address the association between baseline geriatric assessment and outcome.

RESULTS

18 publications from 15 studies were included. The median age of patients was 73 years (range 58-86). Despite generally good performance status, the prevalence of geriatric impairments was high. Geriatric impairments were associated with a shorter overall survival in a relevant proportion of studies (instrumental activities 55%, nutritional status 67%, cognitive capacities 83%, objectively measured physical capacity 100%). Comorbidity, physical capacity and nutritional status retained their significance even in multivariate analyses in 50%, 75%, and 67% of analyses respectively, whereas age and performance status lost their predictive value in most studies. One study found an association between comorbidity and chemotherapy-related non-haematological toxicity. In another study a pronounced association between summarised outcome of geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxicity as well as response to treatment was described.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrates that a geriatric assessment can detect multiple health issues, even in patients with good performance status. Impairments in geriatric domains have predictive value for mortality and also appear to be associated with toxicity and other outcome measures and should thus be integrated in individualised treatment algorithms.

An update on a systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment for older adults in oncology

BACKGROUND

Our previous systematic review of geriatric assessment (GA) in oncology included a literature search up to November 2010. However, the quickly evolving field warranted an update. Aims of this review: (i) provide an overview of all GA instruments developed and/or in use in the oncology setting; (ii) evaluate effectiveness of GA in predicting/modifying outcomes (e.g. treatment decision impact, treatment toxicity, mortality, use of care).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic review of literature published between November 2010 and 10 August 2012. English, Dutch, French and German-language articles reporting cross-sectional or longitudinal, intervention or observational studies of GA instruments were included.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently reviewed abstracts, abstracted data and assessed the quality using standardized forms. A meta-analysis method of combining proportions was used for the outcome impact of GA on treatment modification with studies included in this update combined with those included in our previous systematic review on the use of GA.

RESULTS

Thirty-five manuscripts reporting 34 studies were identified. Quality of most studies was moderate to good. Eighteen studies were prospective, 11 cross-sectional and 5 retrospective. Three studies examined treatment decision-making impact and found decisions changed for fewer than half of assessed patients (weighted percent modification is 23.2% with 95% confidence interval (20.3% to 26.1%). Seven studies reported conflicting findings regarding predictive ability of GA for treatment toxicity/complications. Eleven studies examined GA predictions of mortality, and reported that instrumental activities of daily living, poor performance status and more numerous GA deficits were associated with increased mortality risk. Other outcomes could not be meta-analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with our previous review, several domains of GA are associated with adverse outcomes. However, further research examining effectiveness of GA on treatment decisions and oncologic outcomes is needed.

Experience of multidisciplinary assessment of elderly patients with cancer in a French general hospital during 1 year: a new model care study

OBJECTIVES

Our main aim was to describe and explore a multidisciplinary approach to the management of elderly patients with cancer, who constitute a heterogeneous population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This descriptive study was performed between October 2009 and September 2010. Patients with cancer ≥ 70 years of age were included. Some underwent a simplified multidimensional geriatric assessment with a Charlson score administered by an oncologist, and the evaluation was submitted to a geriatrician who decided whether or not a complete a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) (n=54) should be done. Another group of patients directly underwent a CGA (n=49), and a few patients included in a specific trial underwent a geriatric assessment (n=8). Each patient was classified as fit, vulnerable, or frail by a multidisciplinary team.

RESULTS

111 patients were included (median age: 81 years [range: 65-96]; 60 males). The most frequent types of cancer were lung (n=29), gastrointestinal (n=20) and head and neck (n=14). Median Charlson score was 2.1 [range: 0-9]. Standard therapy was given to 37/41 (90%) fit, 19/41 (42%) vulnerable, and 6/29 (21%) frail patients. Thirteen frail patients received best supportive care. A social worker was mobilized for 2/41 (5%) fit, 14/41 (34%) vulnerable, and 11/29 (38%) frail patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study outlines the possibilities of cooperation between geriatricians and oncologists in a general hospital. This collaboration could modify therapeutic schedules especially in frail and vulnerable patients.

Geriatric factors predict chemotherapy feasibility: ancillary results of FFCD 2001-02 phase III study in first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in elderly patients

PURPOSE

Elderly patients form a heterogeneous population. Evaluation of geriatric factors may help evaluate a patient's health status to better adapt treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomly assigned to receive fluorouracil (FU) -based chemotherapy either alone or in combination with irinotecan (IRI) in the Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive (FFCD) 2001-02 study. Sites participating in the geriatric substudy completed geriatric screening tools to perform prognostic factor analyses for treatment safety during the first 4 months after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

The geriatric score was calculated in 123 patients (44%). Median age was 80 years (range, 75 to 91 years). The Charlson comorbidity index was ≤ 1 in 75%, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score was ≤ 27/30 in 31%, and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) showed impairment in 34% of the patients. Seventy-one patients (58%) had grade 3 to 4 toxicity, 41 (33%) had a dose-intensity reduction of more than 33%, and 54 (44%) had at least one unexpected hospitalization during the first 4 months after starting treatment. In multivariate analysis, significant predictive factors for grade 3-4 toxicity were IRI arm (odds ratio [OR], 5.03), MMSE ≤ 27/30 (OR, 3.84), and impaired IADL (OR, 4.67); for dose-intensity reduction of > 33%, the significant predictive factors were alkaline phosphates > 2 × upper limit of normal (OR, 4.16) and IRI arm (OR, 6.85); and for unexpected hospitalization, significant predictive factors were MMSE ≤ 27/30 (OR, 4.56) and Geriatric Depression Scale ≤ 2 (OR, 5.52).

CONCLUSION

Geriatric factors (MMSE and IADL) are predictive of severe toxicity or unexpected hospitalization (MMSE) in a randomized prospective phase III study in mCRC. These results suggest that cognitive function and autonomy impairment should be taken into account when choosing a regimen for chemotherapy.

Deficient mismatch repair phenotype is a prognostic factor for colorectal cancer in elderly patients

OBJECTIVE

About 15% of colorectal adenocarcinomas have a deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype. The frequency of deficient DNA mismatch repair tumours increases with age due to the hypermethylation of hMLH1 promoter. The study aimed to determine the prognostic value of deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype in elderly patients.

DESIGN

Mismatch repair phenotype was retrospectively determined by molecular analysis in consecutive resected colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens from patients over 75 years of age from 4 Oncology centres.

RESULTS

231 patients (median age: 81, range: 75-100) were enrolled from 2005 to 2008. Mean prevalence of deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype was 22.5%, and 36% for patients over 85 years. Deficient DNA mismatch repair status was significantly associated with older age, female sex, proximal colon primary and high grade tumour. For stage II tumours no deficient DNA mismatch repair tumours had a recurrence at end of follow-up compared to 17% for tumours with proficient phenotype. The proficient phenotype status was significantly associated with worse age-adjusted overall survival [HR 2.60; 95% CI 1.05-6.44; p=0.039]. For stage III tumours a trend for less recurrence was observed for deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype (16%) compared to proficient phenotype (36%).

CONCLUSION

deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype is a prognostic factor in stage II colorectal tumour in elderly patients. Our results suggest that mismatch repair phenotype should be taken in consideration for adjuvant chemotherapy decision in elderly patients.

Impact of an oncogeriatric consulting team on therapeutic decision-making

Increased life expectancy and cancer incidence imply the need to develop a specialized care policy for elderly patients with cancer. We created an oncogeriatric consulting team (OGCT) in Toulouse University Hospital to carry out comprehensive gerontological assessment at the bedside of hospitalized patients. We analyze the impact on the final cancer treatment decision of this mobile geriatric assessment. We carried out a descriptive, retrospective real-life analysis of a patient cohort over a two-year period. The OGCT assessed 124 patients, of whom the majority were women (54.8%), median age 81 years, living at home (95.2%) and with family caregivers (86.5%). Nearly all were frail (96.7% according to the classification of Balducci and colleagues) and 3.2% were vulnerable. The team's decisions were analyzed for patients who had not yet been treated (n=107). After analysis, the team's proposal was in line with the initial cancer treatment plan in 68.2% of cases (n=73). In cases where there was a disagreement, the final decision was in line with the mobile team's proposal in 17.75% of 107 patients (n=19). The decision of the team was followed more often when their assessment proposed strictly palliative treatment. The decision to give elderly patients specific cancer treatment seems in our experience rather to be a matter for the oncologists, and is not very susceptible to modification by geriatric opinion. On the other hand, the geriatrician appears to be more credible and his/her opinion more likely to be followed when the patient is considered too frail and less aggressive, or even exclusively palliative, treatment is proposed.

Use of geriatric assessment for older adults in the oncology setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Geriatric assessment is a multidisciplinary diagnostic process that evaluates the older adult's medical, psychological, social, and functional capacity. No systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment in oncology has been conducted. The goals of this systematic review were: 1) to provide an overview of all geriatric assessment instruments used in the oncology setting; 2) to examine the feasibility and psychometric properties of those instruments; and 3) to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of geriatric assessment in predicting or modifying outcomes (including the impact on treatment decision making, toxicity of treatment, and mortality).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English, French, Dutch, or German between January 1, 1996, and November 16, 2010, reporting on cross-sectional, longitudinal, interventional, or observational studies that assessed the feasibility or effectiveness of geriatric assessment instruments. The quality of articles was evaluated using relevant quality assessment frameworks.

RESULTS

We identified 83 articles that reported on 73 studies. The quality of most studies was poor to moderate. Eleven studies examined psychometric properties or diagnostic accuracy of the geriatric assessment instruments used. The assessment generally took 10-45 min. Geriatric assessment was most often completed to describe a patient's health and functional status. Specific domains of geriatric assessment were associated with treatment toxicity in 6 of 9 studies and with mortality in 8 of 16 studies. Of the four studies that examined the impact of geriatric assessment on the cancer treatment decision, two found that geriatric assessment impacted 40%-50% of treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

Geriatric assessment in the oncology setting is feasible, and some domains are associated with adverse outcomes. However, there is limited evidence that geriatric assessment impacted treatment decision making. Further research examining the effectiveness of geriatric assessment on treatment decisions and outcomes is needed.

Integrated oncogeriatric approach: a systematic review of the literature using concept analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to provide a more precise definition of an integrated oncogeriatric approach (IOGA) through concept analysis.

DATA SOURCES

The literature was reviewed from January 2005 to April 2011 integrating three broad terms: geriatric oncology, multidisciplinarity and integrated care delivery models.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Citation selection was based on: (1) elderly cancer patients as the study population; (2) disease management and (3) case studies, intervention studies, assessments, evaluations and studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were refined in the course of the literature search.

INTERVENTIONS

Initiatives in geriatric oncology that relate to oncology services, social support services and primary care services for elderly cancer patients.

PARTICIPANTS

Elderly cancer patients aged 70 years old or more.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Rodgers' concept analysis method was used for this study. The analysis was carried out according to thematic analysis based on the elements of the Chronic Care Model.

RESULTS

The search identified 618 citations. After in-depth appraisal of 327 potential citations, 62 articles that met our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Three IOGA main attributes were identified, which constitute IOGA's core aspects: geriatric assessment (GA), comorbidity burden and treatment outcomes. The IOGA concept comprises two broad antecedents: coordinated healthcare delivery and primary supportive care services. Regarding the consequents of an integrated approach in geriatric oncology, the studies reviewed remain inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the pioneering character of the multidimensional IOGA concept, for which the relationship between clinical and organisational attributes, on the one hand, and contextual antecedents, on the other, is not well understood. We have yet to ascertain IOGA's consequents. IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There is clearly a need for a whole-system approach to change that will provide direction for multilevel (clinical, organisational, strategic) interventions to support interdisciplinary practice, education and research.