Geriatric assessment prior to cancer treatment: A health economic evaluation

Systematic nutritional screening and assessment in older patients: Rationale for its integration into oncology practice

As the global population ages, so does the number of older people being diagnosed, treated and surviving cancer. Challenges to providing appropriate healthcare management stem from the heterogeneity common in this population. Although malnutrition is highly prevalent in older people with cancer, ranging between 30 % and 80 % according to some analyses, is associated with frailty, and has been shown to be a major risk factor for poor treatment response and worse overall survival, addressing nutrition status is not always a priority among oncology healthcare providers. Evaluation of nutritional status is a two-step process: screening identifies risk factors for reduced nutritional intake and deficits that require more in-depth assessment. Screening activities can be as simple as taking weight and BMI measurements or using short nutritional questionnaires and asking the patient about unintentional weight loss to identify potential nutritional risk. Using geriatric assessment, deficits in the nutritional domain as well as in others reveal potentially reversible geriatric and medical problems to guide specific therapeutic interventions. The authors of this paper are experts in the fields of geriatric medicine, oncology, and nutrition science and believe that there is not only substantial evidence to support regularly performing screening and assessment of nutritional status in older patients with cancer, but that these measures lead to the planning and implementation of patient-centered approaches to nutrition management and thus enhanced geriatric-oncology care. This paper presents rationale for systematic nutrition screening and assessment in older adults with cancer.

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.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in Older Adults With Cancer: Economic Evaluation Within 5C Trial

PURPOSE

Geriatric assessment (GA) is a guideline-recommended approach to optimize cancer management in older adults. We conducted a cost-utility analysis alongside the 5C randomized controlled trial to compare GA and management (GAM) plus usual care (UC) against UC alone in older adults with cancer.

METHODS

The economic evaluation, conducted from societal and health care payer perspectives, used a 12-month time horizon. The Canadian 5C study randomly assigned patients to receive GAM or UC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using the EuroQol five dimension-5L questionnaire and health care utilization using cost diaries and chart reviews. We evaluated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for the full sample and preselected subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 350 patients were included, of whom 173 received GAM and 177 UC. At 12 months, the average QALYs per patient were 0.728 and 0.751 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔQALY, -0.023 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.028]). Considering a societal perspective, the total average costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) per patient were $46,739 and $45,177 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔCost, $1,563 [95% CI, -$6,583 to $10,403]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, GAM was not cost-effective compared with UC (INMB, -$2,713 [95% CI, -$11,767 to $5,801]). The INMB was positive ($2,984 [95% CI, -$7,050 to $14,179]; probability of being cost-effective, 72%) for patients treated with curative intent, but remained negative for patients treated with palliative intent (INMB, -$9,909 [95% CI, -$24,436 to $4,153]). Findings were similar considering a health care payer perspective.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first cost-utility analysis of GAM in cancer. GAM was cost-effective for patients with cancer treated with curative but not with palliative intent. The study provides further considerations for future adoption of GAM in practice.