The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment for optimal treatment of older patients with cancer: A randomized parallel-group clinical trial

Endometrial cancer in the elderly: Characteristics, prognostic and risk factors, and treatment options

Endometrial cancer incidence and related mortality are on the rise due to aging demographics. This population often presents with unfavorable features, such as myometrial invasion, non-endometrioid histology, high-grade tumors, worse prognosis, etc. The role of age as an independent prognostic factor is still debated, and screening tools addressing frailty emerge as pivotal in guiding treatment decisions; however, they are still underutilized. Treatment disparities are evident in the case of older patients with endometrial cancer, who frequently receive suboptimal care, hindering their survival. Radiotherapy and minimally invasive surgical approaches could be performed in older patients. Data on chemotherapy and immunotherapy are scarce, but their potential remains promising and data are being gathered by recent trials, contingent on optimal patient selection through geriatric assessments. Overall, we recommend personalized, screening tool-guided approaches, adherence to guideline-recommended treatments, and inclusion of older people in clinical trials to help identify the best course of treatment.

Effect of comprehensive geriatric assessment on hospitalizations in older adults with frailty initiating curatively intended oncologic treatment: The PROGNOSIS-RCT study

INTRODUCTION

Frailty constitutes a risk for unplanned hospitalizations in older adults with cancer. This study examines whether comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) as an add-on to standard oncologic care can prevent unplanned hospitalizations in older adults with frailty and cancer who initiate curative oncological treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included older adults aged ≥70 with frailty (Geriatric 8 [G8] ≤14), and solid cancers who initiated curative oncological treatment. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either standard oncologic care (control) or standard oncologic care supplemented with CGA-guided interventions (intervention). Baseline characteristics were retrieved prior to randomization. The primary endpoint, the between-group rate ratio of unplanned hospitalizations within six months of treatment initiation, was analyzed using negative binominal regression. Analyses were performed using an intention-to-treat approach, followed by per-protocol analysis, including participants receiving CGA within 30 days of randomization, and preplanned subgroup analyses based on treatment modality and Geriatric 8 screening. Secondary endpoints included acute hospital contacts, treatment adherence, and toxicity.

RESULTS

From November 1, 2020 to May 31, 2023, 173 participants were enrolled. Median age was 75 (interquartile range 72-79), 51.5% were female, 58% had a G8 score > 12, and 84% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. The most common cancer sites were lung (23%), upper gastrointestinal (15%), and breast (13%). The rate (per person-years) of unplanned hospitalization was 1.32 in the intervention group and 1.81 in the control group, with a between-group rate ratio of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.23, P = 0.25) favoring the intervention. The between-group rate ratio increased in the per-protocol analysis (0.64 [95% CI 0.37-1.10, P = 0.10]). Similarly, no significant between group differences were found in treatment adherence, rate of acute hospital contacts, or toxicity.

DISCUSSION

In this study, CGA did not significantly reduce the rate of unplanned hospitalizations. Furthermore, no between-group differences were found in treatment adherence, toxicity lead hospitalizations, or treatment completion in older adults with cancer and frailty. However, per-protocol analysis suggests that increasing adherence to CGA may improve the outcome. Larger studies ensuring higher CGA adherence are warranted to confirm our findings.

Adequate assessment yields appropriate care-the role of geriatric assessment and management in older adults with cancer: a position paper from the ESMO/SIOG Cancer in the Elderly Working Group

With the aging population, older adults constitute a growing proportion of the new cancer cases. Given the heterogeneous health status among older adults and their susceptibility to aging-related vulnerabilities, understanding their diversity and its implications becomes increasingly crucial for prognostication and guiding diagnostics, treatment decisions, and follow-up, as well as informing supportive care interventions. Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) refers to the comprehensive evaluation of an older individual's health status with subsequent management plans focusing on both oncologic and non-oncologic interventions. In 2019, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) established the ESMO/SIOG Cancer in the Elderly Working Group. This position paper reflects the recommendations of the working group. Our paper summarizes the existing evidence with a focus on recent key trials and based on this, we propose several recommendations and future directions.

Effect of age on safety and efficacy of novel cancer drugs investigated in early-phase clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, particularly in early-phase studies. Our study assessed the safety and efficacy of novel anti-cancer treatments investigated in early-phase clinical trials, comparing outcomes between younger and elderly patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed data from patients enrolled in phase I/II trials at our center between January 2014 and April 2021. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, toxicity, and clinical efficacy, categorizing patients into younger (≤ 65 years) and elderly (> 65 years) groups.

RESULTS

419 patients were included with a median age of 56 years. Among these, 107 (26 %) were older than 65 years. Predominant cancers included breast (48 %), lung (10 %), and melanoma (5 %). Patients were treated in 64 trials, predominantly receiving immunotherapy-based (47 %) or targeted therapy-based (45 %) treatment. Elderly presented with poorer ECOG performance status (P = 0.001) and had fewer prior therapy lines (P = 0.01) than younger patients. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were similar across age groups (31 % younger vs 33 % elderly; P = 0.7), including in combination therapy scenarios. However, elderly patients experienced more AEs with antibody-drug conjugates compared to younger counterparts (56 % vs 14 %, P = 0.036) and were more likely to discontinue treatment due to toxicity (15 % vs 7 %; P = 0.011). No significant age-related differences in response rates and survival outcomes were observed across treatment modalities, except for immunotherapy-based regimens for which elderly patients exhibited higher response rates, disease control rates, and prolonged progression-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that elderly exhibit comparable safety and efficacy outcomes to younger patients in early-phase clinical trials for new cancer drugs. This underscores the importance of including elderly patients in phase I/II trials to ensure the generalizability of study results and mitigate age-related disparities in cancer treatment access.

Frequency of use and characterization of frailty assessments in observational studies on older women with breast cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer and frailty frequently co-occur in older women, and frailty status has been shown to predict negative health outcomes. However, the extent to which frailty assessments are utilized in observational research for the older breast cancer population is uncertain. Therefore, the aim of this review was to determine the frequency of use of frailty assessments in studies investigating survival or mortality, and characterize them, concentrating on literature from the past 5 years (2017-2022).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were systematically queried to identify observational studies (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional) published from 2017-2022 that focus on older females (≥ 65 years) diagnosed with breast cancer, and which evaluate survival or mortality outcomes. Independent reviewers assessed the studies for eligibility using Covidence software. Extracted data included characteristics of each study as well as information on study design, study population, frailty assessments, and related health status assessments. Risk of bias was evaluated using the appropriate JBI tool. Information was cleaned, classified, and tabulated into review level summaries.

RESULTS

In total, 9823 studies were screened for inclusion. One-hundred and thirty studies were included in the final synthesis. Only 11 (8.5%) of these studies made use of a frailty assessment, of which 4 (3.1%) quantified frailty levels in their study population, at baseline. Characterization of frailty assessments demonstrated that there is a large variation in terms of frailty definitions and resulting patient classification (i.e., fit, pre-frail, frail). In the four studies that quantified frailty, the percentage of individuals classified as pre-frail and frail ranged from 18% to 29% and 0.7% to 21%, respectively. Identified frailty assessments included the Balducci score, the Geriatric 8 tool, the Adapted Searle Deficits Accumulation Frailty index, the Faurot Frailty index, and the Mian Deficits of Accumulation Frailty Index, among others. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was the most used alternative health status assessment, employed in 56.9% of all 130 studies. Surprisingly, 31.5% of all studies did not make use of any health status assessments.

CONCLUSION

Few observational studies examining mortality or survival outcomes in older women with breast cancer incorporate frailty assessments. Additionally, there is significant variation in definitions of frailty and classification of patients. While comorbidity assessments were more frequently included, the pivotal role of frailty for patient-centered decision-making in clinical practice, especially regarding treatment effectiveness and tolerance, necessitates more deliberate attention. Addressing this oversight more explicitly could enhance our ability to interpret observational research in older cancer patients.

Geriatric Assessment Scale for Optimal Management of Gastric Cancer in Older Adults Who Underwent Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Stomach cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer worldwide, especially in the population over 65 years. The survival rate of the elderly is lower in comparison with young people, and they are underrepresented in clinical trials and research in general. The evaluation of Multidimensional Geriatric Assessment (MGA) would be key for assessing the prognosis of these patients and therefore having a more informed decision-making process when considering one of the most vulnerable populations.

METHODS

A search was performed in the OVID, Embase, and PubBMed databases. There was no restriction on publication time, language, or study design. Eligible studies were those that included geriatric patients with a diagnosis of nonmetastatic stomach cancer who receive oncospecific and surgical management, used Multidimensional/Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (MGA), and which outcomes included at least overall survival, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Four studies were included, and the MGA battery was not implemented, but rather easily measurable scales such as nutritional status, functional status, cognitive and behavioral disorders, comorbidities, and polypharmacy. Some authors proposed that the assessment of overall survival is not explicit among the included studies; patients with gastric cancer and mild, moderate, severe, and total dependence had higher mortality than independent patients (39% [HR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.09-1.7], 68% [95% CI: 1.46-1.93], 187% [HR 2.87 95% CI: 2.47-3.34], and 234% [95% CI: 2.81-3.97]), respectively. The Zhou study showed an association between sarcopenia, assessed by imaging studies, and a longer hospital stay in days (16 [9] vs. 13 [6], p 0.004). The study by Pujara found that polypharmacy (OR 2.36 CI: 1.08-5.17) and weight loss greater than 10% in the past 6 months were associated with greater postoperative morbidity at 90 days (OR 2.36 CI: 1.08-5.17, OR 11.21 CI: 2.16-58.24).

CONCLUSION

MGA was not broadly implemented. Geriatric assessment dependency appears to be a prognostic marker of survival in patients with gastric cancer. Sarcopenia appears to be an important prognostic marker for short- and long-term outcomes. Higher quality studies in this specific population are required to support the systematic use of this assessment for the choice of appropriate therapy according to the patient.

Effects of comprehensive geriatric assessment-guided interventions on physical performance and quality of life in older patients with advanced cancer: A randomized controlled trial (PROGNOSIS-RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Older patients with frailty starting oncological treatment are at higher risk of experiencing declining physical performance, loss of independence, and quality of life (QoL). This study examines whether comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA)-guided interventions added to standard oncological care can prevent declining physical performance and QoL in older patients with frailty initiating palliative treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥70 years, with a Geriatric-8 score of ≤14, initiating palliative oncological treatment were enrolled in an open label randomized controlled trial and randomized 1:1 to receive either CGA-guided interventions in addition to oncological standard care or oncological care alone. Baseline characteristics, physical performance measures, and QoL questionnaires were retrieved before group allocation. CGA was performed using a fixed set of domains and validated tests by a geriatrician-led team. The primary endpoint, physical performance, was measured by the 30-s chair stand test (30s-CST) at three months. Additional outcomes included 30s-CST at six months, handgrip strength test, and QoL. Outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed regression models. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.org (NCT04686851).

RESULTS

From November 1, 2020 to May 31, 2022, 181 patients were included; 88 in the interventional arm and 93 in the control arm. Median age was 77 (interquartile range [IQR] 73-81) years, 69% were male, median Geriatric-8 score was 12 (IQR 10-13), 69% had a Performance Status of 0-1, and the median 30s-CST was 9 (IQR 5-11) repetitions. The between-group difference in 30s-CST at three months was 0.67 (95%CI: -0.94 - 2.29) and 1.57 (95%CI: -0.20 - 3.34) at six months, which were not statistically significant. Subgroup analysis including participants with a baseline Geriatric-8 of 12-14 found borderline significant between-group differences in 30s-CST scores at three and six months of 2.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07 - 4.2, P = 0.06) and 2.25 (95%CI: 0.01-4.5, P = 0.05), respectively. No within-group or between-group differences in the summary score or the Elderly Functional Index score (measuring QoL) were found.

DISCUSSION

This study did not find significant between-group differences in the 30s-CST in older patients receiving palliative care. However, a tendency towards improved physical performance was seen in the least frail. These patients may represent a target group wherein CGA interventions provide particular benefit.

Effectiveness of geriatric assessment and management in older cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Frailty and multimorbidity among older cancer patients affect treatment tolerance and efficacy. Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management is recommended to optimize cancer treatment, but its effect on various outcomes remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cost-effectiveness studies comparing comprehensive geriatric assessment (with or without implementation of recommendations) to usual care in older cancer patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane trials from inception to January 27, 2023, for RCTs and cost-effectiveness studies. Pooled estimates for outcomes were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 19 full-text articles representing 17 RCTs were included. Average participant age was 72-80 years, and 31%-62% were female. Comprehensive geriatric assessment type, mode of delivery, and evaluated outcomes varied across studies. Meta-analysis revealed no difference in risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.08. 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.29), hospitalization (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.10), early treatment discontinuation (RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.19), initial dose reduction (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.26), and subsequent dose reduction (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.09). However, the risk of treatment toxicity was statistically significantly lower in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.86). No cost-effectiveness studies were identified.

CONCLUSION

Compared with usual care, comprehensive geriatric assessment was not associated with a difference in risk of mortality, hospitalization, treatment discontinuation, and dose reduction but was associated with a lower risk of treatment toxicity indicating its potential to optimize cancer treatment in this population. Further research is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

The effect of comprehensive geriatric assessment on care received, treatment completion, toxicity, cancer-related and geriatric assessment outcomes, and quality of life for older adults receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to summarise the available literature on the effect of geriatric assessment (multidimensional health assessment across medical, social, and functional domains; "GA") or comprehensive geriatric assessment (geriatric assessment with intervention or management recommendations; "CGA") compared to usual care for older adults with cancer on care received, treatment completion, adverse treatment effects, survival and health-related quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials or prospective cohort comparison studies on the effect of GA/CGA on care received, treatment, and cancer outcomes for older adults with cancer.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included: seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two phase II randomised pilot studies, and one prospective cohort comparison study. All studies included older adults receiving systemic therapy, mostly chemotherapy, for mixed cancer types (eight studies), colorectal cancer (one study), and non-small cell lung cancer (one study). Integrating GA/CGA into oncological care increased treatment completion (three of nine studies), reduced grade 3+ chemotherapy toxicity (two of five studies), and improved quality of life scores (four of five studies). No studies found significant differences in survival between GA/CGA and usual care. GA/CGA incorporated into care decisions prompted less intensive treatment and greater non-oncological interventions, including supportive care strategies.

DISCUSSION

GA/CGA integrated into the care of an older adult with cancer has the potential to optimise care decisions, which may lead to reduced treatment toxicity, increased treatment completion, and improved health-related quality of life scores.

Significance of the comprehensive geriatric assessment in the administration of chemotherapy to older adults with cancer: Recommendations by the Japanese Geriatric Oncology Guideline Committee

INTRODUCTION

The number of older patients with cancer is expected to continue to increase owing to the aging population. Recently, the usefulness of geriatric assessment (GA) conducted by multiple staff members from different medical backgrounds has been reported; however, a consensus on the effectiveness of GA has not yet been achieved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We, as the Japanese Geriatric Oncology Guideline Committee for elderly patients with cancer, conducted a literature search of randomized controlled trials published before August 2021 that used GA or comprehensive GA (CGA) as an intervention for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. As the key outcomes for answering the clinical question, we focused on survival benefit, adverse events, and quality of life (QOL). After a systematic review of these studies, the expert panel member developed recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

For older patients with cancer, GA or CGA is suggested during or before chemotherapy (weakly recommended). Chemotherapy-induced adverse events were significantly reduced by GA/CGA interventions without any adverse effects on survival. Health-related QOL tended to improve with the GA/CGA interventions.

DISCUSSION

Although, in our opinion, GA/CGA does require time and resources, it poses no harm patients. Therefore, we suggest expanding the human resources and educating skills of medical providers for clinical implementation of GA/CGA.

Clinical decision-making in older patients with cancer: a cross-sectional single-centre study to assess the impact of clinical judgement and patient preferences

OBJECTIVE

The heterogeneity in the population of older patients with cancer makes clinical decision-making difficult. We investigated the agreement between the G8 score and clinical judgment in frailty assessments, determined the impact of a life-expectancy calculator, and explored patient and caregiver preferences towards the treatment goal.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥75 years in need of new oncological treatment were prospectively enrolled between June 2020 and February 2021. Frailty was estimated by the oncologist and caregiver and compared to the G8 estimation. We examined whether the oncologist changed the fit/frail estimation based on life expectancy calculated using the ePrognosis tool. The main treatment goals, either longevity or quality of life (QoL), from the patient's and caregiver's perspective were noted and compared.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included in the analysis. Comparison of the oncologist's and the caregiver's frailty estimation with the G8 assessment showed agreement and a Kappa coefficient of 58.3% (0.231) and 60% (0.255), respectively. The ePrognosis score and the odds of change in the frailty estimation by the oncologist showed no correlation. Regarding preferences, 28 (57.1%) and 17 (34.7%) patients and eighteen (47.3%) and seventeen (44.7%) caregivers chose longevity and QoL, respectively. The observed agreement and Kappa coefficient were 78.8% and 0.578.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the G8 assessment, frailty was underestimated by both oncologists and caregivers. Most of the patients chose longevity over QoL, and the preferences between the patient and the caregiver matched in the majority of cases.

The preoperative G8 geriatric screening tool independently predicts survival in older patients with endometrial cancer: results of a retrospective single-institution cohort study

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of global health status assessment tools in elderly patients with endometrial cancer (EC) on survival.

METHODS

Preoperative frailty status was assessed by the G8 geriatric screening tool (G8 Score), Lee Schonberg prognostic index, Charlson Comorbidity index and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status System in women older than 60 years with EC. Univariable and multivariable Cox-regression analyses, as well as Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed to determine the prognostic impact. Statistical analyses were adjusted for cancer entity-specific risk factors such as conventional histopathological tumor characteristics and relevant anamnestic life style parameters.

RESULTS

153 patients with all stages of EC who were operated at the University Medical Center Mainz between 2008 and 2019 were included. In multivariable analyses, only the G8 Score retained independent significance as a prognostic factor for disease-specific survival (DSS) (HR:4.58; 95% CI [1.35-15.51]) and overall survival (OS) (HR:2.89; 95% CI [1.31-6.39]. 92 patients (61.3%) were classified as G8-non-frail with a significantly increased DSS and OS rate compared to the 58 G8-frail patients (DSS:93.8% vs. 60.8%; p < 0.001 and OS:88.2% vs. 49.7%; p < 0.001; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study demonstrates the substantial clinical and prognostic impact of the G8 Score on survival in elderly women with EC. Assessing the frailty status to estimate the individual vulnerability of elderly cancer patients could be useful in preoperative decision-making to individualize treatment plans such as the surgical radicality and to improve pre- and postoperative morbidity.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial on impact of comprehensive geriatric and supportive assessment versus standard care in older adults with cancer undergoing curative treatment: The Geriatric Oncology SuPportive clinic for ELderly (GOSPEL) study

Cancer affects older adults with varying levels of frailty, but cancer treatment is extrapolated from clinical trials involving predominantly young and robust subjects. Recent geriatric oncology randomised controlled trials (RCT) report that geriatric assessment leading to frailty-guided intervention reduces treatment-related toxicity whilst maintaining survival and improving quality of life (QoL). However, these positive results have not have been consistently reported in the literature. We postulate that the impact of geriatric interventions has been underestimated in these studies with the inclusion of subjects receiving palliative-intent chemotherapy in whom dose reduction is common. Integrating supportive care with current geriatric oncology models may improve the QoL of older adults undergoing treatment. However, no studies as yet have examined such integrated geriatric and supportive models of care. The Geriatric Oncology SuPportive clinic for Elderly (GOSPEL) study is a single-centre, open-label, analyst-blinded RCT evaluating the impact of comprehensive geriatric and supportive care on QoL of older adults with cancer undergoing curative treatment. Older adults aged above 65, with a Geriatric-8 score ≤ 14, with plans for high dose radiotherapy and/or curative chemotherapy will be recruited. The primary QoL outcome is measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-ELD14 mobility scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include overall and disease-free survival, treatment-related adverse events, and hospital admissions. We pre-powered this study to recruit 200 subjects based on the minimally clinically important difference for EORTC QLQ-ELD14 to achieve 80% statistical power (alpha 0.05), assuming 25% attrition. Outcomes will be analysed using intention-to-treat. Intervention consists of multi-domain comprehensive geriatric and supportive care assessments from a multidisciplinary team targeting unmet needs. These include functional decline, falls, incontinence, cognitive impairment, multi-morbidity, polypharmacy, and symptom relief, as well as social and psycho-spiritual concerns. Standard care entails routine oncological management with referral to geriatrics based on the discretion of the primary oncologist. Recruitment has been ongoing since August 2020. Results from the GOSPEL study will increase understanding of the impact of integrated geriatric and supportive care programs in older adults with cancer receiving curative treatment. Trial registration: This study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT04513977).

Comprehensive geriatric assessment and multidisciplinary team interventions for hospitalized older adults: A scoping review

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidisciplinary diagnostic and treatment process to evaluate medical, psychosocial, and functional capability. It is useful to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for frail older patients. This study aimed to examine the current scope of CGA based multidisciplinary team interventions in acute care setting to improve the health outcomes for older adults.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases: PubMed, Ovid, PsychINFO, Scopus, RISS and KoreaMed from 2011 to 2021. The selected articles were extracted by three reviewers and cross checked by the fourth reviewer to resolve any conflicts. Data were synthesized and analyzed descriptively and thematically. Articles are nested three themes: inpatient (IN), emergency room (ER) and oncology patient (ONCO).

RESULTS

Of the 1830 articles that were screened, 710 were potentially eligible. Finally, 26 articles were selected and categorized as IN (n=8), ER (n=7) and ONCO (n=11). Geriatricians and nurses participated in most of the multidisciplinary teams followed by other health professionals. The most effective primary outcomes were focused and retrieved across five domains, screening, prevention, treatment, quality of care, and rehabilitation. The subdomains are problem lists which is common and problematic among hospitalized older patients and retrieved from the most commonly used multidisciplinary interventions according to each domain.

CONCLUSION

CGA based multidimensional intervention (MDI) are likely to be an effective in care of older adults. There is remarkable paradigm shift required to improve better health outcomes for hospitalized older adults. It also suggests that there is a need to design the CGA based MDI to build a standardized protocol for older adults to maintain functional capacity and increase likelihood of living in their own home.

Impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment on the risk of adverse events in the older patients receiving anti-cancer therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

to assess the efficacy of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for preventing treatment-related toxicity in older people undergoing non-surgical cancer therapies.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception till January 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the incidence of toxicity measured by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (primary outcome) and that of therapeutic modifications, early treatment discontinuation, progression-free survival, overall survival and hospitalisation (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

analysis of six RCTs published from 2016 to 2021 recruiting 2,126 participants (median age: 71-77) who received chemotherapy as the major therapeutic approach revealed 51.7% and 64.7% of Grade 3+ toxicity in the CGA and control (i.e. standard care) groups, respectively (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.7-0.94, P = 0.005, I2 = 65%, certainty of evidence [COE]: moderate). There were no significant differences in the incidence of early treatment discontinuation (RR = 0.88, P = 0.47; I2 = 63%,1,408 participants, COE: low), initial reduction in treatment intensity (RR = 0.99, P = 0.94; I2 = 83%, 2055 participants, COE: low), treatment delay (RR = 1.06, P = 0.77, I2 = 0%, 309 participants, COE: moderate), hospitalisation (RR = 0.86, P = 0.39, I2 = 41%, 914 participants, COE: moderate), progression-free and overall survival with or without CGA. However, there was an association between CGA and a lower incidence of dose reduction during treatment (RR = 0.73, P < 0.00001, 956 participants, COE: moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

our results demonstrated that comprehensive geriatric assessment may be associated with a lower incidence of treatment-related toxicity and dose reduction compared to standard care in older people receiving non-surgical cancer treatments. Further large-scale studies are warranted to support our findings.

Exploring Cost-Effectiveness of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Geriatric Oncology: A Narrative Review

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and the corresponding geriatric interventions are beneficial for community-dwelling older persons in terms of reduced mortality, disability, institutionalisation and healthcare utilisation. However, the value of CGA in the management of older cancer patients both in terms of clinical outcomes and in cost-effectiveness remains to be fully established, and CGA is still far from being routinely implemented in geriatric oncology. This narrative review aims to analyse the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CGA adopted in geriatric oncology, identify the relevant parameters used in the literature and provide recommendations for future research. The review was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane databases, covering published studies without selection by the publication year. The extracted data were categorised according to the study design, participants and measures of cost-effectiveness, and the results are summarised to state the levels of evidence. The review conforms to the SANRA guidelines for quality assessment. Twenty-nine studies out of the thirty-seven assessed for eligibility met the inclusion criteria. Although there is a large heterogeneity, the overall evidence is consistent with the measurable benefits of CGA in terms of reducing the in-hospital length of stay and treatment toxicity, leaning toward a positive cost-effectiveness of the interventions and supporting CGA implementation in geriatric oncology clinical practice. More research employing full economic evaluations is needed to confirm this evidence and should focus on CGA implications both from patient-centred and healthcare system perspectives.

G-8 Geriatric Screening Tool Independently Predicts Progression-Free Survival in Older Ovarian Cancer Patients Irrespective of Maximal Surgical Effort: Results of a Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the prognostic impact of various global health assessment tools in patients older than 60 years with ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

G-8 geriatric screening tool (G-8 score), Lee Schonberg prognostic index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were determined retrospectively in a consecutive cohort of elderly patients with OC. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier method were performed to analyze the impact of the preoperative global health status on survival.

RESULTS

116 patients entered the study. In multivariate analysis adjusted for clinical-pathological factors, only the G-8 score retained significance as a prognostic parameter of progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.970; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.056-3.677]; p = 0.033). Fifty-six patients were classified as G-8-nonfrail with an increased PFS compared to 50 G-8-frail patients (53.4% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.010). A higher CCI was associated with decreased PFS (45.1% vs. 22.2%; p = 0.012), but it did not influence the risk of recurrences or death (p = 0.360; p = 0.111). The Lee Schonberg prognostic index, the ECOG, and age were not associated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The G-8 score independently predicted PFS in elderly OC patients regardless of maximal surgical effort. Thus, it could be useful to assess surgical treatment based on frailty rather than age alone.

Evaluation of geriatric assessment and management on the toxic effects of cancer treatment (GAP70+): a cluster-randomised study

BACKGROUND

Older adults with advanced cancer are at a high risk for treatment toxic effects. Geriatric assessment evaluates ageing-related domains and guides management. We examined whether a geriatric assessment intervention can reduce serious toxic effects in older patients with advanced cancer who are receiving high risk treatment (eg, chemotherapy).

METHODS

In this cluster-randomised trial, we enrolled patients aged 70 years and older with incurable solid tumours or lymphoma and at least one impaired geriatric assessment domain who were starting a new treatment regimen. 40 community oncology practice clusters across the USA were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention (oncologists received a tailored geriatric assessment summary and management recommendations) or usual care (no geriatric assessment summary or management recommendations were provided to oncologists) by means of a computer-generated randomisation table. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had any grade 3-5 toxic effect (based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4) over 3 months. Practice staff prospectively captured toxic effects. Masked oncology clinicians reviewed medical records to verify. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02054741.

FINDINGS

Between July 29, 2014, and March 13, 2019, we enrolled 718 patients. Patients had a mean age of 77·2 years (SD 5·4) and 311 (43%) of 718 participants were female. The mean number of geriatric assessment domain impairments was 4·5 (SD 1·6) and was not significantly different between the study groups. More patients in intervention group compared with the usual care group were Black versus other races (40 [11%] of 349 patients vs 12 [3%] of 369 patients; p<0·0001) and had previous chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients vs 81 [22%] of 369 patients; p=0·016). A lower proportion of patients in the intervention group had grade 3-5 toxic effects (177 [51%] of 349 patients) compared with the usual care group (263 [71%] of 369 patients; relative risk [RR] 0·74 (95% CI 0·64-0·86; p=0·0001). Patients in the intervention group had fewer falls over 3 months (35 [12%] of 298 patients vs 68 [21%] of 329 patients; adjusted RR 0·58, 95% CI 0·40-0·84; p=0·0035) and had more medications discontinued (mean adjusted difference 0·14, 95% CI 0·03-0·25; p=0·015).

INTERPRETATION

A geriatric assessment intervention for older patients with advanced cancer reduced serious toxic effects from cancer treatment. Geriatric assessment with management should be integrated into the clinical care of older patients with advanced cancer and ageing-related conditions.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute.

Predictive value of geriatric oncology screening and geriatric assessment of older patients with cancer: A randomized clinical trial protocol (PROGNOSIS-RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been shown to reduce frailty in older patients in general. In older patients with cancer, frailty affects quality of life (QoL), physical function, and survival. However, few studies have examined the effect of CGA as an additional intervention to antineoplastic treatment. This protocol presents a randomized controlled trial, which aims to evaluate the effects of CGA-based interventions in older patients with cancer and Geriatric 8 (G8) identified frailty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized controlled trial will include patients, age 70+ years, with solid malignancies and G8 frailty (G8 ≤ 14). Patients will be separated into two groups, with different primary endpoints, depending on palliative or curative antineoplastic treatment initiation, and subsequently randomized 1:1 to either CGA with corresponding interventions or standard of care, along with standardized antineoplastic treatment. A geriatrician led CGA with corresponding interventions and clinical follow-up will be conducted within one month of antineoplastic treatment initiation. The interdisciplinary CGA will cover multiple geriatric domains and employ a standard set of validated assessment tools. Primary endpoints will be physical decline measured with the 30-s Chair-Stand-Test at three months (palliative setting) and unplanned hospital admissions at six months (curative setting). Additional outcomes include QoL, treatment toxicity and adherence, occurrence of polypharmacy, potential drug interactions, potential inappropriate medications, and survival. The primary outcomes will be analyzed using a mixed model regression analysis (30-s chair stand test) and linear regression models (unplanned hospitalizations), with an intention to treat approach. Power calculations reveal the need to enroll 134 (palliative) and 188 (curative) patients.

DISCUSSION

The present study will examine whether CGA, as an additional intervention to antineoplastic treatment, can improve endpoints valued by older patients with cancer. Inclusion began November 2020 and is ongoing, with 37 and 29 patients recruited April 15th, 2021. Registration:NCT04686851.

Predictive Value of Geriatric Oncology Screening and Geriatric Assessment in Older Patients with Solid Cancers: Protocol for a Danish prospective cohort study (PROGNOSIS-G8)

INTRODUCTION

Older patients with cancer constitute a heterogeneous group with varying degrees of frailty; therefore, geriatric assessment with initial geriatric oncology screening is recommended. The Geriatric 8 (G8) and the modified Geriatric 8 (mG8) are promising screening tools with high accuracy and an association with survival. However, evidence is sparse regarding patient-centered outcomes. This protocol describes a study, which aims to address the predictive and prognostic value of the G8 and mG8, with quality of life (QoL) as the primary outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center prospective cohort study, patients, age ≥70 years with solid malignancies, will be screened with the G8 and mG8 prior to receiving 1st line antineoplastic treatment. Patients will contribute medical record data including; cancer type, Charlson comorbidity index score, performance status, and treatment intent, type, and dosage, at baseline. Patients will complete QoL questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and ELD-14) at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12-months follow-up. Two functional measurements (the 30-s chair stand test and the handgrip strength test) will be conducted at baseline to assess the added predictive and prognostic value. At 12 months follow-up, initially administered treatment and treatment adherence will be recorded and assessed with generalized linear models, while overall survival and cancer-specific survival will be assessed using survival analysis models with time-varying covariates. The relationship between frailty (G8 ≤ 14, mG8 ≥ 6) and QoL within 12 months will be examined using mixed regression models.

DISCUSSION

Geriatric oncology screening may identify a subgroup of older patients with frailty, at risk of experiencing diminishing QoL and poor treatment adherence. With the proposed screening program, patients who require treatment modification and additional support to maintain their QoL may be identified. It is our hope, that these insights may facilitate the formation of national guidelines for the treatment of older patients with cancer. Registration:NCT04644874.

Measuring quality of life in older people with cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of individuals aged 65+ with cancer will double in the next decade. Attention to quality of life (QOL) is imperative to identify relevant endpoints/outcomes in research and provide care that matches individual needs. This review summarizes recent publications regarding QOL measurement in older adults with cancer, considering implications for research and practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

QOL is a complex concept and its measurement can be challenging. A variety of measurement tools exist, but only one specific to older adults with cancer. QOL is frequently measured as functional health, adverse symptoms, and global QOL, thus only capturing a portion of this concept. Yet successful QOL intervention for older adults requires drawing from behavioral and social dimensions.Growing interest in comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provides important opportunities for measuring QOL. Recommendations for use of CGAs and PROs in clinical practice have been made but widespread uptake has not occurred.

SUMMARY

QOL is important to older adults and must be central in planning and discussing their care. It is modifiable but presents measurement challenges in this population. Various domains are associated with decline, survival, satisfaction with life, coping, and different interventions. Measurement approaches must fit with intention and capacity to act within given contexts.

Capacity to Provide Geriatric Specialty Care for Older Adults in Community Oncology Practices

BACKGROUND

American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend that patients ≥65 years of age starting chemotherapy undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to inform and guide management; however, little is known about resources available in community oncology practices to implement these guidelines and to facilitate geriatric oncology research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were electronically surveyed in 2017 regarding the availability of specialty providers, supportive services, and practice characteristics, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research capacity.

RESULTS

Of the 943 NCORP practices, 504 (54%) responded to the survey, representing 210 practice groups. The median new cancer cases per year ≥65 years of age was 457 (interquartile range 227-939). Of respondents, only 2.0% of practices had a fellowship-trained geriatric oncologist on staff. Geriatricians were available for consultation or comanagement at 37% of sites, and of those, only 13% had availability within the oncology clinic (5% of overall). Practice size of ≥1,000 new adult cancer cases (ages ≥18) per year was associated with higher odds (1.81, confidence interval 1.02-3.23) of geriatrician availability. Other multidisciplinary care professionals that could support GA were variably available onsite: social worker (84%), nurse navigator (81%), pharmacist (77%), dietician (71%), rehabilitative medicine (57%), psychologist (42%), and psychiatrist (37%).

CONCLUSION

Only a third of community oncology practices have access to a geriatrician within their group and only 5% of community sites have access within the oncology clinic. Use of primarily self-administered GA tools that direct referrals to available services may be an effective implementation strategy for guideline-based care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Only a minority of community oncology practices in the U.S. have access to geriatric specialty care. Developing models of care that use patient-reported measures and/or other geriatric screening tools to assess and guide interventions in older adults, rather than geriatric consultations, are likely the most practical methods to improve the care of this vulnerable population.

Nutritional Status and Its Contributing Factors among Older Adults with Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy

The study aimed to assess nutritional status and its contributing factors among older adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy so, a descriptive study design was used. The study was conducted at Zagazig University Hospitals, Egypt. The study's sample was selected purposively which composed of 194 older adults. Nutritional status was measured by the Arabic version of the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA). Contributing factors were identified by examining the relationship of nutritional status with demographic and clinical variables. Study results revealed that 33% of the older patients were malnourished and 51.5% were at risk for malnutrition. Statistically significant relations were found between nutritional status and advanced age, illiteracy, insufficient monthly income, comorbidities, cancer stage four at diagnosis, and receiving ≥4 chemotherapy cycles. High prevalence of malnutrition and many contributing factors were identified among older patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. So, continuous malnutrition screening along chemotherapy courses with special concern for contributing factors assessed in this study is recommended.

Optimizing lung cancer MDT data for maximum clinical impact-a scoping literature review

Multidisciplinary care in is widely recommended as best practice for lung cancer in many countries and jurisdictions. A number of studies suggest multidisciplinary care benefits patient outcomes, with analyses based on a range of data sources including national, state and local registries as well as multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT)-based data collections, often focused on different questions depending on data sources. MDT data collection and linkage are not standardized and not routine although data collection and feedback are specifically recommended by at least one statutory body. We performed a scoping review of current evidence for lung cancer MDT data collection and analysis, to identify discrete strategies through illustrative examples and to make recommendations for future approaches. Thirteen studies were identified that presented lung cancer MDT-related clinical outcomes, three included MDTs from multiple tumour streams while 10 studies focussed on lung cancer MDT meetings. Eleven studies measured the effect of MDT discussion on clinical outcomes of which eight were positive. Data sources included MDT records (3 studies), medical or hospital records (3 studies), institutional registries (5 studies) and state or national administrative datasets (6 studies), with some overlap. Examples of studies based on different data sources (local MDT, institutional registry, national registry) exemplified the different types of clinical research questions appropriate for each data source. While MDT data collection is not well-defined, the importance of clinical audit and data feedback and the potential for real-time analysis to improve outcomes deserve further investigation. Optimized datasets and linkage strategies are likely to maximize benefits for patients.