Geriatric oncology in the Netherlands: a survey of medical oncology specialists and oncology nursing specialists

Geriatric Oncology in Portugal: Where We Are and What Comes Next—A Survey of Healthcare Professionals

In keeping with the trend worldwide, in Portugal, more than 60% of newly diagnosed patients with cancer are aged 65 years or older, which makes older adults the most common population seen in an oncology practice. This study’s objectives were to assess geriatric oncology practices in Portugal and investigate medical professionals’ current needs and perceptions on the treatment of elderly cancer patients. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a web-based survey of healthcare providers treating elderly patients. Results: There were 222 responses: 62.6% of physicians reported the absence of geriatric oncology and/or geriatrics consultations in their institutions, 14.9% had guidelines for the management of older patients with cancer and 4.5% had physicians dedicated to geriatric oncology. The reported use of geriatric assessment tools was 23.4%. Medical oncologists and physicians from medical specialties (p = 0.009) and those practicing in the south of Portugal (p = 0.054) were more likely to use geriatric assessment. Education and training in geriatric oncology was identified by 95.0% of respondents as an unmet need. The inquiries identified that geriatric assessment could be useful to define a therapeutic strategy (85.1%), detect frailty (77.5%), predict toxicity and improve quality of life (73.4%). Conclusions: There is a paucity of expertise and training in geriatric oncology in Portugal but an increasing perception of the value of geriatric assessment and the demand for education. In the next years, Portugal will progress in this area with the aid of the recently created Geriatric Oncology Working Group.

Barriers and Facilitators for the Implementation of Geriatric Oncology Principles in Mexico: A Mixed-Methods Study

There is limited information regarding the use of the geriatric assessment (GA) for older adults with cancer in developing countries. We aimed to describe geriatric oncology practice among Mexican oncology professionals and to identify barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA into the routine care of older adults with cancer in Mexico.

Routine use of geriatric oncology principles in Mexico is limited by insufficient personnel and knowledge.

Implementation of geriatric assessment and long-term care insurance system by medical professionals in cancer treatment: a nationwide survey in Japan

BACKGROUND

A questionnaire survey was conducted to assess the implementation status of geriatric assessment in cancer treatment and the potential for collaboration between medical care and the long-term care insurance system.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent to 795 facilities in Japan. The questions were instructed to be answered via an online survey (SurveyMonkey®), which began in September 2020 and closed on 31 October 2020. The questionnaire consisted of 8 questions on the status of geriatric assessment implementation and 15 questions on the long-term care insurance system.

RESULTS

In total, 631 departments in 340 (42.8%) of 795 hospitals and clinics provided responses. Approximately 81.5% of the departments did not perform geriatric assessment. The common reasons were lack of knowledge about geriatric assessment (54.0%) and lack of personnel (35.5%). Even if geriatric assessment was conducted, 63.6% of departments did not utilize geriatric assessment results in clinical practice. Approximately 61.7% of respondents were familiar with the long-term care insurance system and 62.9% with the certification process. Moreover, 28% of respondents used certification examination results in treatment planning.

CONCLUSIONS

Geriatric assessment is less recognized than the long-term care insurance system, and its results are rarely used in clinical practice. However, 28% of certification examination results are utilized in treatment decision-making. Notably, this survey first showed the incorporation of the long-term care insurance system into the medical care of vulnerable elderly patients with cancer.

MacKenzie A, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Maggiore RJ, Merrill JK, Katta S, Smith KT, Klepin HD. How Is Geriatric Assessment Used in Clinical Practice for Older Adults With Cancer? A Survey of Cancer Providers by the American Society of Clinical Oncology

PURPOSE

For patients with cancer who are older than 65 years, the 2018 ASCO Guideline recommends geriatric assessment (GA) be performed. However, there are limited data on providers' practices using GA. Therefore, ASCO's Geriatric Oncology Task Force conducted a survey of providers to assess practice patterns and barriers to GA.

METHODS

Cancer providers treating adult patients including those ≥ 65 years completed an online survey. Questions included those asking about awareness of ASCO's Geriatric Oncology Guideline (2018), use of validated GA tools, and perceived barriers to using GA. Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons between those aware of the Guideline and those who were not were conducted. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 1,277) responded between April 5 and June 5, 2019. Approximately half (53%) reported awareness of the Guideline. The most frequently used GA tools, among those aware of the Guideline and those who were not, assessed functional status (69% v 50%; P < .001) and falls (62% v 45%; P < .001). Remaining tools were used < 50% of the time, including tools assessing weight loss, comorbidities, cognition, life expectancy, chemotherapy toxicity, mood, and noncancer mortality risk. GA use was two to four times higher among those who are aware of the Guideline. The most frequent barriers for those who reported being Guideline aware were lack of resources, specifically time (81.7%) and staff (77.0%). In comparison, those who were unaware of the Guideline most often reported the following barriers: lack of knowledge or training (78.4%), lack of awareness about tools (75.2%), and uncertainty about use of tools (75.0%).

CONCLUSION

Among providers caring for older adults, 52% were aware of the ASCO Guideline. Some domains were assessed frequently (eg, function, falls), whereas other domains were assessed rarely (eg, mood, cognition). Guideline awareness was associated with two to four times increased use of GA and differing perceived barriers. Interventions facilitating Guideline-consistent implementation will require various strategies to change behavior.

The G8 frailty screening tool and the decision-making process in older breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the decision-making process in fit and frail older breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients aged ≥70 years who completed the G8 frailty screening tool (G8) were included in this retrospective study. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were collected, as well as information from geriatric assessment (GA). Treatment decisions were compared with national guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 177 patients, 85 patients were considered fit by the G8 (G8-fit) and 92 patients frail (G8-frail). All G8-fit and 53 G8-frail were proposed for surgery. GA was performed in 34 patients (9 G8-fit; 25 G8-frail) of whom 16 (2 G8-fit;14 G8-frail) were considered frail (GA-frail). 28 out of these 34 patients were considered fit for surgery (including 11 GA-frail); their impairments were unlikely to interfere with surgery or life expectancy. Reasons for adjusting treatment were physical/cognitive condition and patient preference. Ultimately, 123 patients underwent surgery in accordance with guidelines (81 G8-fit;42 G8-frail, p < 0.001). Survival was reduced in G8-frail compared to G8-fit (p = 0.001), but G8 lost its association with mortality in multivariable survival analysis. Among patients undergoing surgery, no difference in mortality was seen between G8-fit and G8-frail (p = 0.996).

CONCLUSION

The G8 is associated with treatment decisions and did not affect survival in patients undergoing surgery. In the decision-making process, the G8 may help and estimates the need for adaptive care.

Implementation of geriatric assessment in oncology settings: A systematic realist review

Older adults with cancer are more likely to have worse clinical outcomes than their younger counterparts, and shared decision-making can be difficult, due to both complexity from adverse ageing and under-representation in clinical trials. Geriatric assessment (GA) has been increasingly recognised as a predictive and prehabilitative tool for older adults with cancer. However, GA has been notoriously difficult to implement in oncological settings due to workforce, economic, logistical, and practical barriers. We aimed to review the heterogenous literature on implementation of GA in oncology settings to understand the different implementation context configurations of GA and the mechanisms they trigger to enable successful implementation. A systematic realist review was undertaken in two stages: i) systematic searches with structured data extraction combined with iterative key stakeholder consultations to develop programme theories for implementing GA in oncology settings; ii) synthesis to refine programme theories. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, ASSIA, Epistemonikos, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, DARE and Health Technology Assessment were searched. Four programme theories were developed from 53 included articles and 20 key stakeholder consultations addressing the major barriers of GA implementation in oncology practice: time (leveraging non-specialists), funding (creating favourable health economics), practicalities (establishing the use of GA in cancer care), and managing limited resources. We demonstrate that a whole system approach is required to improve the implementation of GA in cancer settings. This review will help inform policy decisions regarding implementation of GA and provide a basis for further implementation research.

Caring for older cancer patients: A scoping review

There is a growing recognition among oncologists that older patients differ from other cancer patients. Older patients present age-specific issues affecting the prevention and management of their cancer. Over the years, this has led to the development of the discipline of geriatric oncology, which is the set of practices elaborated to evaluate, treat, follow-up and rehabilitate the population of older cancer patients. Geriatric oncology is still struggling to establish itself in healthcare settings managing older cancer patients. Efforts are currently being made to make it a recognized medical specialty. Health policy makers have to have a grasp of the evolution of this discipline because it concerns a fast growing segment of the cancer patient population. To shed light on the literature about this field, we undertook a scoping review in which we identified relevant studies; charted the data from the selected studies, collated, summarized and reported the results. From 2043 references initially identified, we included 92 articles in our scoping review and extracted data from 88 articles. The included articles were classified into three major categories, namely Advancing the discipline, Organization of care and Nursing and support services for patient and their caregivers. This review affords researchers and policy makers a foundation to help conduct many other conversations on each theme and sub-theme.

Landscape of education and clinical practice in geriatric oncology: a Japanese nationwide survey

Objective

The aim of this survey was to describe how geriatric oncology is integrated in undergraduate teaching and graduate training as well as in daily clinical oncology practice in Japan.

Methods

All schools of medicine in Japan are allied with graduate schools of medicine. We conducted a survey of all Japanese medical and graduate schools (n = 81), and designated cancer hospitals (n = 437) from July 2018 to August 2018. The survey of the schools asked about existence of geriatrics division and geriatric oncology service and if an education curriculum in geriatrics and geriatric oncology was used. The survey of designated cancer hospitals requested general hospital information and the current practice patterns of general geriatric and cancer patients.

Results

Forty-eight medical schools (59%) participated in this survey, and teaching in geriatrics and geriatric oncology was implemented in 23 schools and 1 school, respectively. Forty-two graduate schools of medicine (52%) responded; five had an education curriculum in geriatrics, but none provided geriatric oncology training. Among 151 participating hospitals (35%), 5 had a geriatrics division and 20 hospitals employed geriatricians. There was no geriatric oncology service or geriatric oncology specialists in any of the 151 hospitals. Seventy percent of the hospitals reported performing a geriatric assessment for at least some older adults with cancer.

Conclusions

This survey provides information on the current state of Japanese education and clinical practice in geriatric oncology. In Japan, a nation with among the largest population of older citizens in the world, education and training greatly need to be promoted to disseminate a core set of geriatrics knowledge and skills to students, trainees and healthcare professionals.

Geriatric oncology in Spain: survey results and analysis of the current situation

Introduction

Geriatric oncology (GO) is a discipline that focuses on the management of elderly patients with cancer. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) created a Working group dedicated to geriatric oncology in February 2016.

Objectives

The main goal of this study was to describe the current situation in Spain regarding the management of elderly cancer patients through an online survey of medical oncologists.

Methods

A descriptive survey was sent to several hospitals by means of the SEOM website. A personal e-mail was also sent to SEOM members.

Results

Between March 2016 and April 2017, 154 answers were collected. Only 74 centers (48%) had a geriatrics department and a mere 21 (14%) medical oncology departments had a person dedicated to GO. The vast majority (n = 135; 88%) had the perception that the number of elderly patients with cancer seen in clinical practice had increased. Eighteen (12%) oncologists had specific protocols and geriatric scales were used at 55 (31%) centers. Almost all (92%) claimed to apply special management practices using specific tools. There was agreement that GO afforded certain potential advantages. Finally, 99% of the oncologists surveyed believed it and that training in GO had to be improved.

Conclusions

From the nationwide survey promoted by the Spanish Geriatric Oncology Working Group on behalf of SEOM, we conclude that there is currently no defined care structure for elderly cancer patients. There is an increasing perception of the need for training in GO. This survey reflects a reality in which specific needs are perceived.

A Belgian Survey on Geriatric Assessment in Oncology Focusing on Large-Scale Implementation and Related Barriers and Facilitators

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate.

RESULTS

Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration.

CONCLUSION

Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.