The underreporting of phase III chemo-therapeutic clinical trial data of older patients with cancer: A systematic review

The Effect of Education and Monitoring via Tele-Nursing to Elderly Cancer Patients Using Oral Anticancer Agents on Self-efficacy and Medication Adherence: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of the education and monitoring provided via tele-nursing to elderly cancer patients using oral anticancer agents on their medication treatment adherence self-efficacy and medication adherence.

METHODS

The sample of the study consisted of 60 elderly cancer patients who presented to the oncology outpatient clinics of a medical faculty hospital in Turkey. An Elderly Information Form, the Oral Chemotherapy Adherence Scale, the Medication Adherence Self-Efficacy Scale, a Tele-nursing Evaluation Form, and a Telephone Monitoring Form were used to collect data. Patients in the intervention group were sent text messages and educational videos via WhatsApp® for the first four weeks, and after the fifth week, they were monitored by phone for eight weeks. Data collection tools were applied to the control and intervention groups at weeks 1, 8, and 12. Independent samples t-test, Repeated measurements analysis of variance chi-square test, and Pearson correlation test were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

In the study, while there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the intervention and control groups on the pretest application of the Oral Chemotherapy Adherence Scale and the Medication Adherence Self-Efficacy Scale (p > .05), a significant difference was found between the mean posttest scores of the groups (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, it was determined that the education and monitoring provided to elderly cancer patients via tele-nursing positively affected their self-efficacy and medication adherence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

In line with the research results, it is recommended that nurses use tele-nursing applications in the care of elderly cancer patients using oral anticancer agents.

Clinical trials in older patients with cancer - typical challenges, possible solutions, and a paradigm of study design in breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

While the prevalence of older breast cancer patients is rapidly increasing, these patients are greatly underrepresented in clinical trials. We discuss barriers to recruitment of older patients to clinical trials and propose solutions on how to mitigate these challenges and design optimal clinical trials through the paradigm of IMPORTANT trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a narrative review of the current literature evaluating barriers to including older breast cancer patients in clinical trials and how mitigating strategies can be implemented in a pragmatic clinical trial.

RESULTS

The recognized barriers can be roughly divided into trial design-related (e.g. the adoption of strict inclusion criteria, the lack of pre-specified age-specific analysis), patient-related (e.g. lack of knowledge, valuation of the quality-of-life instead of survival, transportation issues), or physician-related (e.g. concern for toxicity). Several strategies to mitigate barriers have been identified and should be considered when designing a clinical trial dedicated to older patients with cancer. The pragmatic, de-centralized IMPORTANT trial focusing on dose optimization of CDK4/6 -inhibitors in older breast cancer patients is a paradigm of a study design where different mitigating strategies have been adopted.

INTERPRETATION

Because of the existing barriers, older adults in clinical trials are considerably healthier than the average older patients treated in clinical practice. Thus, the study results cannot be generalized to the older population seen in daily clinical practice. Broader inclusion/exclusion criteria, offering telehealth visits, and inclusion of patient-reported, instead of physician-reported outcomes may increase older patient participation in clinical trials.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes by Age in Metastatic Urinary Tract Cancer: A Retrospective Tertiary Cancer Center Analysis

Metastatic urinary tract cancer (mUTC) is challenging to treat in older adults due to comorbidities. We compared the clinical courses of younger and older (≥70 years) adults with mUTC receiving first-line (1L) systemic therapy in a tertiary cancer center. Baseline clinical characteristics, treatments received, tolerability, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Among 212 patients (103 older vs. 109 younger), the older patients had lower hemoglobin at baseline (84% vs. 71%, p = 0.03), the majority were cisplatin-ineligible (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.001), received more immunotherapy-based treatments in the 1L (52% vs. 36%, p = 0.01), received fewer subsequent lines of treatment (median 0 vs. 1, p = 0.003), and had lower clinical trial participation (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.05) compared to the younger patients. When treated with 1L chemotherapy, older patients required more dose adjustments (53.4% vs. 23%, p = 0.001) and received fewer cycles of chemotherapy (median 4 vs. 5, p= 0.01). Older patients had similar OS (11.2 months vs. 14 months, p = 0.06) and similar rates of treatment-related severe toxicity and healthcare visits, independent of the type of systemic treatment received, compared to younger patients. We conclude that select older adults with mUTC can be safely treated with immunotherapy and risk-adjusted regimens of chemotherapy with tangible survival benefits.

State of the scientific evidence and recommendations for the management of older patients with gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is one of the most frequent and deadly tumours worldwide. However, the evidence that currently exists for the treatment of older adults is limited and is derived mainly from clinical trials in which older patients are poorly represented. In this article, a group of experts selected from the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD), and the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Digestive Cancer (GEMCAD) reviews the existing scientific evidence for older patients (≥65 years old) with gastric cancer and establishes a series of recommendations that allow optimization of management during all phases of the disease. Geriatric assessment (GA) and a multidisciplinary approach should be fundamental parts of the process. In early stages, endoscopic submucosal resection or laparoscopic gastrectomy is recommended depending on the stage. In locally advanced stage, the tolerability of triplet regimens has been established; however, as in the metastatic stage, platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-based regimens with the possibility of lower dose intensity are recommended resulting in similar efficacy. Likewise, the administration of trastuzumab, ramucirumab and immunotherapy for unresectable metastatic or locally advanced disease is safe. Supportive treatment acquires special importance in a population with different life expectancies than at a younger age. It is essential to consider the general state of the patient and the psychosocial dimension.

Geriatric evaluation methods in oncology and their use in clinical studies: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic options in oncology keep on expanding. Nonetheless, older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials and those enrolled often have a better health status than their average peers, resulting in a lack of representative evidence for this heterogenous population. The inclusion of older patients and a uniform categorization of "frailty" is becoming increasingly urgent. Standardized tools could contribute to the quality and comparability of clinical trials and facilitate clinical decisions. The aim of this literature review was to elaborate an overview of the use of geriatric evaluation (GE) methods in clinical cancer research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a literature review of the PubMed database. Clinical pharmacotherapy studies that applied or evaluated a clearly defined system for the GE of oncological patients were included. Data retrieved encompassed the applied GE method(s), cancer type(s), and pharmacotherapy investigated, the number of included patients, study type, year of publication, as well as the primary purpose of the GE. The GEs used most frequently were depicted in more depth.

RESULTS

In this literature review, 103 publications were selected for inclusion. The biggest proportion of studies (36%, n = 34) used clearly defined, but not previously validated, GE methods (study-specific GE). Standardized GE methods encountered in at least five publications were the G8 screening test (applied in 18% of included studies, n = 17), the Balducci score (7%, n = 7), and a geriatric assessment based on Hurria (5%, n = 5). The primary purpose of GE was predominantly an appraisal of its potential role in pharmacotherapy optimization. The GE also served as baseline and outcome measure, inclusion/exclusion criterion, factor for stratified randomization, and to determine treatment allocation.

DISCUSSION

The wide range of GE methods used across studies make direct comparisons difficult, and many methods are poorly characterized and/or not previously validated. The further inclusion of representative older patients in clinical trials combined with the use of a standardized GE could help clinicians in the decision-making process.

Cardiovascular Concerns, Cancer Treatment, and Biological and Chronological Aging in Cancer: JACC Family Series

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are leading causes of death globally, particularly among the rapidly growing population of older adults (OAs). CVD is a leading cause of mortality among cancer survivors, often accelerated by cancer treatments associated with short- or long-term cardiotoxicity. Moreover, there is a dynamic relationship among CVD, cancer, and aging, characterized by shared risk factors and biological hallmarks, that plays an important role in caring for OAs, optimizing treatment approaches, and developing preventive strategies. Assessment of geriatric domains (eg, functional status, comorbidities, cognition, polypharmacy, nutritional status, social support, psychological well-being) is critical to individualizing treatment of OAs with cancer. The authors discuss considerations in caring for an aging population with cancer, including methods for the assessment of OAs with CVD and/or cardiovascular risk factors planned for cancer therapy. Multidisciplinary care is critical in optimizing patient outcomes and maintaining quality of life in this growing vulnerable population.

Implementation of a geriatric oncology service at the Royal Marsden Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Despite significant evidence supporting the benefits of comprehensive oncogeriatric assessment in the management of older patients with cancer, the adoption of specialised geriatric oncology programs in the United Kingdom remains limited. Descriptions of clinic structure and models, patient demographics and baseline characteristics, resource utilisation, and predictors of resource utilisation are lacking in this population, which may complicate or impede the planning, resourcing, and development of further services in this subspecialty on a national and regional basis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between November 2021 and April 2023, 244 patients commencing systemic anticancer treatment at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London underwent geriatric screening using the Senior Adult Oncology Programme-3 (SAOP3) screening tool. Baseline clinical factors (sex, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric [CIRS-G] score, Katz Index score, Barthel Index score, treatment intent, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG-PS]) were assessed as predictors of geriatric impairments and need for multidisciplinary referral and intervention using a negative binomial regression analysis. Referral rates to multidisciplinary teams were assessed against ECOG-PS score using point-biserial correlation, as well as against a historical control using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The median age of participants was 77; 75.8% were female. Breast cancer was the most prevalent diagnosis (61.9%). Most patients (67.6%) were undergoing treatment in the palliative setting. Two hundred eleven (86.5%) patients were identified as having at least one geriatric impairment. Six hundred forty-nine multidisciplinary referrals were made, of which 583 (86.7%) were accepted by the referred patient. Higher ECOG PS was positively associated with geriatric impairments in physiotherapy, occupational therapy, dietetics, pharmacy, and welfare rights domains, as well as with the overall number of geriatric impairments.

DISCUSSION

The Royal Marsden Senior Adult Oncology Programme represents the first geriatric oncology service in a tertiary cancer centre in the United Kingdom. Following implementation of SAOP3 screening, we observed a substantial increase in referrals to all multidisciplinary teams, suggestive of previously underrecognized needs among this population. The need for multidisciplinary intervention was strongly correlated with baseline ECOG-PS score, but not with other measured clinical variables, including comorbidity or functional indices.

Reporting of older subgroups in registration breast cancer trials 2012-2021

INTRODUCTION

Adequate reporting of data specific to older populations enrolled to breast cancer trials is critical, given the high incidence of the disease among this demographic. This study aimed to examine the completeness of reporting of older subgroups among patients recruited to registration clinical trials investigating systemic treatments for breast cancer.

METHODS

Clinical trials leading to a US food and drug administration (FDA) approval in breast cancer between 2012 and 2021 were included. Primary study reports and and all available secondary publications were systematically and objectively assessed with regard to the availability of data regarding efficacy, baseline characteristics, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes among older subgroups.

RESULTS

27 trials and 216 publications were assessed. 20.3% of patients were aged ≥65. 70.0% of patients had an eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status of 0. Although complete reporting of primary endpoints was adequate (72.7%), most protocol-defined primary endpoints were surrogate endpoints (84.8%). Overall survival data among older populations was unavailable in 50.0% of studies. Reporting was poor for secondary efficacy endpoints (81.8% unreported), baseline characteristics (70.4% unreported), toxicity (55.6% unreported), and health-related quality of life outcomes (87.5% unreported).

CONCLUSION

The findings underline significant deficits in the reporting of age-specific data in breast cancer registration trials. The underreporting of key efficacy, safety, and HRQOL outcomes highlights the need for mandatory reporting standards and a dedicated emphasis on older populations' priorities and needs in the reporting of registration clinical trials.

Adherence to Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations in Patients With Curable Esophageal and Gastric Cancers

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) discussion is standard practice in the management of Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers. However, poor adherence to MDT recommendations may account for the lack of improved oncological outcomes with MDTs. We aim to quantify adherence rates and compare outcomes between adherent and non-adherent patients.

METHODS

We included all patients with potentially curable primary UGI carcinomas who were discussed at UGI MDT from 2017 to 2018. MDT recommendations were compared to actual treatment received. Oncological and survival outcomes were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Amongst 153 patients, 64 (41.8%) were non-adherent to MDT recommendations. Reasons for non-adherence were patient refusal (50.0%), treatment-related complications (31.3%), disease factors (17.2%) and clinician decision (1.56%). Univariate analysis showed that non-adherent patients were older (71.6 vs 65.2 years, p < 0.001), with higher clinical stage at point of diagnosis (p = 0.028), pathological stage after resection (p < 0.001) and were more likely to be recommended for multimodal therapy. No significant factors were associated with non-adherence at multivariate analysis. Non-adherent patients had worse median overall survival (19.5 months) compared to adherent patients (not reached at follow-up) with both unmatched and propensity-score matched analysis. Patients who received only part of the intended adjuvant chemotherapy course had worse median overall survival and disease-free survival compared to patients who completed or did not initiate adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-adherence to MDT recommendations was associated with advanced age and tumor stage, and potentially contributes to the worse oncological outcomes in a group of patients already predisposed to poor outcomes.

Differences in urban and suburban/rural settings regarding care provision and barriers of cancer care for older adults during COVID-19

PURPOSE

Care for older adults with cancer became more challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in urban hotspots. This study examined the potential differences in healthcare providers' provision of as well as barriers to cancer care for older adults with cancer between urban and suburban/rural settings.

METHODS

Members of the Advocacy Committee of the Cancer and Aging Research Group, with the Association of Community Cancer Centers, surveyed multidisciplinary healthcare providers responsible for the direct care of patients with cancer. Respondents were recruited through organizational listservs, email blasts, and social media messages. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used.

RESULTS

Complete data was available from 271 respondents (urban (n = 144), suburban/rural (n = 127)). Most respondents were social workers (42, 44%) or medical doctors/advanced practice providers (34, 13%) in urban and suburban/rural settings, respectively. Twenty-four percent and 32.4% of urban-based providers reported "strongly considering" treatment delays among adults aged 76-85 and > 85, respectively, compared to 13% and 15.4% of suburban/rural providers (Ps = 0.048, 0.013). More urban-based providers reported they were inclined to prioritize treatment for younger adults over older adults than suburban/rural providers (10.4% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.04) during the pandemic. The top concerns reported were similar between the groups and related to patient safety, treatment delays, personal safety, and healthcare provider mental health.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate location-based differences in providers' attitudes regarding care provision for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Through the Lens of Patient Partners: Challenges in Accrual of Older Adults to NCI Clinical Trials

The workshop "Engaging Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials Conducted in the NCI Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities" included a Patient Stakeholder Workgroup that explored the needs and concerns of older adults with cancer regarding clinical trials. To accomplish this, the workgroup conducted patient focus groups in which participants were interviewed, recorded conversations were analyzed and coded, and salient themes were identified. The focus groups identified general barriers to accrual such as complex consent forms, general communication, restrictive eligibility, nonreferrals, patient costs, cultural insensitivity, limited accessibility in community settings, and transportation issues. They also identified the influence of knowledgeable information presenters, improved care, family or caregiver support, and the desire to help others as drivers or reasons to participate in clinical trials. The workshop concluded that multi-level interventions could be used to increase the accrual of older adults to National Cancer Institute clinical trials as well as others.

Management of Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in Older and Frail Patients: Have Novel Treatment Approaches Improved Their Care?

Patients with urothelial carcinoma tend to be older and frailer with a large number of chronic medical conditions. This is particularly pronounced in those with unresectable locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Prior to 2016, treatment options in advanced urothelial carcinoma were limited to chemotherapy, and as a result, a large number of patients were not receiving disease-directed management. Over the last 6 years, multiple alternative modalities including immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have been introduced. They are being utilized clinically in older and frail patients, but there are limited studies investigating outcomes in these specific populations. Based upon current evidence, age does not impact the efficacy and tolerance of immune checkpoint inhibitors if patients are fit enough to receive therapy. In frailer patients, immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be safe, but outcomes from largely retrospective studies demonstrate mixed data regarding their efficacy. Although there are indications from clinical trials that enfortumab vedotin, sacituzumab govitecan, and erdafitinib are also efficacious irrespective of age, there is still not enough evidence to draw definitive conclusions about their use in older and frail patients. Regardless, in all older patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, it is critical to evaluate for frailty through geriatric screening tools and comprehensive assessments. Combining these evaluations with consideration of an individual patient's goals should be the foundation upon which therapeutic decisions are made in this population of patients.

Exclusion of Older Adults from Cancer Clinical Trials: Review of the Literature and Future Recommendations

In this review, we present the context of older adult (OA) cancer patients within the broader cancer population, including cancer burdens and trial representation. We first describe the proportion of older adults in clinical trials, with studies showing strong evidence that the proportion of OA in cancer trials is much less than the proportion of OA in the overall cancer population. We highlight the lack of generalizability that can lead to challenges in treatment decisions for OA as well as concerns regarding health inequity. We then discuss barriers to OA enrollment related to trial structure and design, physician perspective, and patient and/or caregiver perspective. We expand on this further by outlining these barriers throughout the process of trial design, patient enrollment/trial implementation, and data analysis in post-market settings. We summarize guidelines from national societies, regulatory agencies, and other institutional bodies, then present a compilation of on-the-ground actionable recommendations to address the challenges of clinical trial design, focusing on geriatric assessments and OA-specific trials. We conclude by providing an outline for future directions, noting specifically the potential impact that radiotherapy and radiation oncology may have on clinical trials related to OA patients.

Representation and Outcomes of Older Adults in Practice-Changing Oncology Trials in the Era of Novel Therapies: A Guideline Appraisal

BACKGROUND

Older adults account for 70% of cancer-related deaths, but previous studies have shown that they are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. We sought to analyze the representation and outcomes of older adults in trials conducted in the era of novel targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

METHODS

We searched the 2020 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and retrieved trials from the past 10 years leading to category 1 recommendations in the first-line metastatic setting for the 5 most common causes of cancer death. We categorized trials by cancer type, single-agent versus multiagent approach, and therapeutic class. We described the percentage of older adults (according to each trial's definition) and used a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis model to compare overall and progression-free survival by age.

RESULTS

We identified 30 trials consisting of 24,416 patients. Across all trials, 44% of enrolled patients were older adults. Representation of older adults by cancer type within trials was 49% prostate cancer, 38% pancreatic cancer, 37% breast cancer, and 34% non-small cell lung cancer. Representation of older adults also varied by therapeutic class: 20% received immunotherapy, 44% received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 54% received targeted/hormonal therapy, and 34% received combination therapy (P<.001 for all comparisons). For each year since 2010, the percentage of older adults enrolled in trials increased by 1.9%, although this difference was not significant. We observed no difference in overall or progression-free survival between older and younger adults. In our analysis of practice-changing clinical trials, we found that 44% of clinical trial participants were older adults. Trials that included immunotherapy or a combination of therapeutic classes had a lower representation of older adults (<40%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that >40% of patients in practice-changing trials are older adults. Although they remain underrepresented in clinical trials compared with the general population, older adults in practice-changing trials seem to be better represented than in previously reported analyses of cooperative group trials.

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.

What Should We Recommend for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Adults Aged 75 and Older?

The current recommendation to stop colorectal cancer screening for older adults is based on a lack of evidence due to systematic exclusion of this population from trials. Older adults are a heterogenous population with many available strategies for patient-centered assessment and decision-making. Evolutions in management strategies for colorectal cancer have made safe and effective options available to older adults, and the rationale to screen for treatable disease more reasonably, especially given the aging Canadian population. In this commentary, we review the current screening guidelines and the evidence upon which they were built, the unique considerations for screening older adults, new treatment options, the risks and benefits of increased screening and potential considerations for the new guidelines.

The Globalization of Geriatric Oncology: From Data to Practice

Older adults with cancer are a unique group of patients who require specialized care and treatment. The field of geriatric oncology (GO) was born more than 3 decades ago to address the needs of this growing group of patients. Some challenges in the GO field include establishing a GO clinical service, educating and training personnel, and conducting research in GO. These issues are addressed to varying extents with global initiatives in GO, which are largely dependent on the socioeconomic status of the countries involved. To overcome disparities seen globally, scientific journals that reach an international cancer audience should publish content related to improving care of older adults with cancer around the world, develop an organizational structure that encourages global dissemination of GO knowledge, and advance reporting policies that encourage higher-quality reporting of data relevant to older adults with cancer worldwide. A number of international scientific journals have risen to the occasion to address these disparities. A key battle in enabling access of this vulnerable group of patients to clinical trials is now being fought and won on the global front with numerous regulatory initiatives. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) recently issued draft guidance on the inclusion of older adults in cancer clinical trials. This and other global initiatives led by the FDA have the potential to further improve the evidence base for older adults with cancer.

Older adults with cancer and their caregivers - current landscape and future directions for clinical care

Despite substantial improvements in the outcomes of patients with cancer over the past two decades, older adults (aged ≥65 years) with cancer are a rapidly increasing population and continue to have worse outcomes than their younger counterparts. Managing cancer in this population can be challenging because of competing health and ageing-related conditions that can influence treatment decision-making and affect outcomes. Geriatric screening tools and comprehensive geriatric assessment can help to identify patients who are most at risk of poor outcomes from cancer treatment and to better allocate treatment for these patients. The use of evidence-based management strategies to optimize geriatric conditions can improve communication and satisfaction between physicians, patients and caregivers as well as clinical outcomes in this population. Clinical trials are currently underway to further determine the effect of geriatric assessment combined with management interventions on cancer outcomes as well as the predictive value of geriatric assessment in the context of treatment with contemporary systemic therapies such as immunotherapies and targeted therapies. In this Review, we summarize the unique challenges of treating older adults with cancer and describe the current guidelines as well as investigational studies underway to improve the outcomes of these patients.

Toward Modernization of Geriatric Oncology by Digital Health Technologies

The number of older adults with cancer is increasing. Over the past 3 decades, geriatric oncology research has focused on improving the assessment of frailty and fitness of older adults with cancer as well as methods of improving their outcomes. At the same time, advances in digital health technologies have opened new frontiers for reaching this goal. Digital health technologies encompass a variety of solutions, from electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to Big Data and wireless sensors. These solutions have the potential to further advance our understanding of patients' experiences during cancer treatment. Whereas the data on the feasibility and utility of such solutions in the care of older adults with cancer are limited, interest from digital health oncology researchers to further explore the benefits of these products is increasing. In this article, we describe the focus of geriatric oncology, the rationale behind the need to explore digital health technologies in this setting, and emerging data and ongoing studies, as well as provide guidelines for proper selection, implementation, and testing of digital health solutions in the context of geriatric oncology.

Strategies to Improve Participation of Older Adults in Cancer Research

Cancer is a disease associated with aging. As the US population ages, the number of older adults with cancer is projected to dramatically increase. Despite this, older adults remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments and, consequently, clinicians struggle with how to interpret data from clinical trials and apply them to older adults in practice. A combination of system, clinician, and patient barriers bar opportunities for trial participation for many older patients, and strategies are needed to address these barriers at multiple fronts, five of which are offered here. This review highlights the need to (1) broaden eligibility criteria, (2) measure relevant end points, (3) expand standard trial designs, (4) increase resources (e.g., institutional support, interdisciplinary care, and telehealth), and (5) develop targeted interventions (e.g., behavioral interventions to promote patient enrollment). Implementing these solutions requires a substantial investment in engaging and collaborating with community-based practices, where the majority of older patients with cancer receive their care. Multifaceted strategies are needed to ensure that older patients with cancer, across diverse healthcare settings, receive the highest-quality, evidence-based care.