1
|
Jamy OH, Kasner M, Wall S, Ingram S, Dent D'A, Dudley WN, Dudley L, Scott JM, Wujcik D. Integrating electronic geriatric assessment and frailty screening for adults with acute myeloid leukemia to drive personalized treatment decisions. Leuk Res 2023; 134:107393. [PMID: 37801913 DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2023.107393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2023] [Revised: 09/10/2023] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 10/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Evidenced based guidelines for patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) acknowledge increasing importance of frailty assessment when deciding on treatment, yet comprehensive geriatric assessment (GA) results are not easily incorporated into clinic workflows and the electronic health record. This study assessed the feasibility of electronic GA use in a real-world environment. METHODS Patients with AML, ≥ 60 years and at a treatment decision-making point were recruited at three academic institutions. An electronic GA (eGA) was completed by patients prior to starting treatment. Results were immediately available on a dashboard. Data on feasibility, useability and acceptability of the intervention were collected immediately after the clinical visit. Patients completed follow up surveys at 3 months and chart reviews were done to capture treatment and toxicities. RESULTS 77 patients were enrolled with a median age of 71 years (range=61-88). The eGA results were 25 fit (31.0 %), 22 (32.0 %) intermediate, and 23 (31.0 %) frail. There was 62.7 % (n = 47) provider concordance with the eGA result and 27 (36.0 %) post visit reports indicated that the eGA results influenced the treatment decision. On average, patients completed the surveys unassisted in 16.24 min and providers reviewed the dashboard in 3.5 min. CONCLUSION Patients easily completed an eGA prior to starting treatment. Results were reviewed by the physician and considered in the decision for optimal treatment. One third of physician reports indicated the results were used to inform the treatment decision. Feasibility of completing the eGA in the clinic without workflow disruption and utility of the results was demonstrated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omer Hassan Jamy
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
| | - Margaret Kasner
- Chief Leukemia Section, Division of Hematologic Malignancies and HSCT, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Sarah Wall
- Division of Hematology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Stacey Ingram
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
| | - D 'Ambra Dent
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
| | - William N Dudley
- Piedmont Research Strategies, Inc, Greensboro, NC, United States
| | - Leah Dudley
- Piedmont Research Strategies, Inc, Greensboro, NC, United States
| | - Julie M Scott
- Director of Clinical Operations, Carevive Systems, Inc, Miami, FL, United States
| | - Debra Wujcik
- Director of Research, Carevive Systems, Inc, Miami, FL, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mac Eochagain C, Senac NMG, Cavanagh M, Roy M, Ciccone AS, Contreras B, Testa GD, Velasco R, Marinho J, Serrano AG, Schiaffino MK, Gomes F. Digital health in geriatric oncology: A Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology review. J Geriatr Oncol 2023; 14:101649. [PMID: 38682324 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2023.101649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2023] [Revised: 09/27/2023] [Accepted: 10/11/2023] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
The integration of digital health technologies in geriatric oncology has the potential to enhance patient care and self-management. This review article discusses the applications of these technologies, including teleassessment, telemonitoring, and teleintervention, within geriatric oncology, and evaluates their potential to improve cancer care and patient outcomes. We also review challenges to the implementation of digital health technologies among populations of older patients with cancer. The article provides a perspective for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and patients on the integration and utilisation of digital health technologies in current geriatric oncology practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Colm Mac Eochagain
- Trinity St James Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
| | - Nicolas Maria Gonzalez Senac
- Geriatrics Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mercedes Cavanagh
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mukul Roy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai, India
| | - Andrea Sebastiano Ciccone
- Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia-Antipolis INSERM U1081, CNRS UMR 7284, Centre Hospitalier, Universitaire de Nice, Hôpital de Cimiez, Nice, France
| | | | - Giuseppe Dario Testa
- Department of Geriatric and Intensive Care Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Rogelio Velasco
- Clinical Trial and Research Divison, Philippine Heart Center, Quezon City, Philippines; Lung Center of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines
| | - Joana Marinho
- Medical Oncology Department, Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal; Associação de Investigação de Cuidados de Suporte em Oncologia (AICSO), Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
| | - Adolfo Gonzalez Serrano
- Urology Department, Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma, Spain; Inserm, IMRB, Université Paris-Est-Créteil, Créteil, France
| | - Melody K Schiaffino
- School of Public Health, Division of Health Management and Policy, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States of America; Center for Health Equity, Education and Research (CHEER), University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America; UC San Diego School of Medicine, CA, United States of America
| | - Fabio Gomes
- Medical Oncology Department, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
McMullan C, Retzer A, Hughes SE, Aiyegbusi OL, Bathurst C, Boyd A, Coleman J, Davies EH, Denniston AK, Dunster H, Frost C, Harding R, Hunn A, Kyte D, Malpass R, McNamara G, Mitchell S, Mittal S, Newsome PN, Price G, Rowe A, van Reil W, Walker A, Wilson R, Calvert M. Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) solution for patients with inflammatory diseases in an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) basket trial. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2023; 7:98. [PMID: 37812323 PMCID: PMC10562321 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-023-00634-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Accepted: 09/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment from the patient perspective. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to describe how we developed an electronic platform for patients to report their symptoms, and (2) to develop and undertake usability testing of an ePRO solution for use in a study of cell therapy seeking to provide early evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment and test the feasibility of the system for use in later phase studies. METHODS An ePRO system was designed to be used in a single arm, multi-centre, phase II basket trial investigating the safety and activity of the use of ORBCEL-C™ in the treatment of patients with inflammatory conditions. ORBCEL-C™ is an enriched Mesenchymal Stromal Cells product isolated from human umbilical cord tissue using CD362+ cell selection. Usability testing sessions were conducted using cognitive interviews and the 'Think Aloud' method with patient advisory group members and Research Nurses to assess the usability of the system. RESULTS Nine patient partners and seven research nurses took part in one usability testing session. Measures of fatigue and health-related quality of life, the PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 global tolerability question were included in the ePRO system. Alert notifications to the clinical team were triggered by PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 scores. Patient participants liked the simplicity and responsiveness of the patient-facing app. Two patients were unable to complete the testing session, due to technical issues. Research Nurses suggested minor modifications to improve functionality and the layout of the clinician dashboard and the training materials. CONCLUSION By testing the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of our novel ePRO system (PROmicsR), we learnt that most people with an inflammatory condition found it easy to report their symptoms using an app on their own device. Their experiences using the PROmicsR ePRO system within a trial environment will be further explored in our upcoming feasibility testing. Research nurses were also positive and found the clinical dashboard easy-to-use. Using ePROs in early phase trials is important in order to provide evidence of therapeutic responses and tolerability, increase the evidence based, and inform methodology development. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN, ISRCTN80103507. Registered 01 April 2022, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80103507.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christel McMullan
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
- NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
- Centre for Trauma Science Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
| | - Ameeta Retzer
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sarah E Hughes
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands, Birmingham, UK
| | - Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Camilla Bathurst
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Jamie Coleman
- Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Alastair K Denniston
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- DEMAND Hub, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Health Data Research UK, London, UK
- Academic Unit of Ophthalmology, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK
| | | | | | - Rosie Harding
- Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Derek Kyte
- School of Allied Health & Community, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK
| | - Rebecca Malpass
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | | | - Philip N Newsome
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Gary Price
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
| | - Anna Rowe
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Wilma van Reil
- Research Governance, University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Anita Walker
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Roger Wilson
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum, London, UK
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- DEMAND Hub, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Health Data Research UK, London, UK
- Midlands Health Data Research UK, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Vaitkevičienė GE, Ažukaitis K, Jankauskienė A, Petrėnė J, Puronaitė R, Trinkūnas J, Jankauskienė D. Development and Integration of Patient-Reported Measures into E-Health System: Pilot Feasibility Study. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11:2290. [PMID: 37628488 PMCID: PMC10454584 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11162290] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 08/12/2023] [Indexed: 08/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Patient-centered care is recognized as a key element in recent healthcare management strategies. However, the integrated collection of patient feedback capturing the entire journey of patients with complex medical conditions remains understudied. Herein, we aimed to describe the development of an instrument prototype for the collection of PROMs and PREMs that would encompass a whole patient journey at a single time point. We further describe the process of its integration into a hospital's information system (HIS) and the results of a pilot feasibility study in adult patients with kidney and hematological diseases. We developed an instrument consisting of original PREM and generic EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. E-questionnaires were handled with REDCap software (version 12.5.14) and integrated into the HIS. Patients refusing to use e-questionnaires (48%) were offered paper administration and were older (64 vs. 50 years). The overall response rate for e-questionnaires was 57.1% with a median completion time of 2.0 and 3.7 min for PROM and PREM, respectively. Psychological and social services and primary care setting (diagnosis establishment and involvement in continuous care) were identified as most problematic. The majority of PREM dimensions encompassing different levels of care significantly correlated with PROM responses. Our data indicate the feasibility and potential relevance of the proposed approach, although wider-scale studies in diverse settings are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Goda Elizabeta Vaitkevičienė
- Center of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, 08406 Vilnius, Lithuania
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania; (K.A.); (A.J.); (R.P.)
| | - Karolis Ažukaitis
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania; (K.A.); (A.J.); (R.P.)
- Center of Pediatrics, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, 08406 Vilnius, Lithuania
| | - Augustina Jankauskienė
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania; (K.A.); (A.J.); (R.P.)
- Center of Pediatrics, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, 08406 Vilnius, Lithuania
| | - Justė Petrėnė
- Center of Hematology, Oncology and Transfusiology, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, 08406 Vilnius, Lithuania;
| | - Roma Puronaitė
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania; (K.A.); (A.J.); (R.P.)
- Center of Informatics and Development, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, 08406 Vilnius, Lithuania;
| | - Justas Trinkūnas
- Center of Informatics and Development, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, 08406 Vilnius, Lithuania;
- Faculty of Fundamental Sciencies, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Dotan E, Catalano P, Lenchik L, Boutin R, Yao X, Marques HS, Ioffe D, Zhen DB, Li D, Wagner LI, Simon MA, Wong TZ, O'Dwyer PJ. The GIANT trial (ECOG-ACRIN EA2186) methods paper: A randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel compared with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and liposomal irinotecan in older patients with treatment-naïve metastatic pancreatic cancer - defining a new treatment option for older vulnerable patients. J Geriatr Oncol 2023; 14:101474. [PMID: 36963200 PMCID: PMC10425127 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2023.101474] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 03/06/2023] [Indexed: 03/26/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the US with an increasing incidence in older adults (OA) over age 70. There are currently no treatment guidelines for OA with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPCA) and selecting a chemotherapy regimen for these patients is subjective, based largely on chronologic age and performance status (PS). Geriatric screening tools provide a more objective and accurate evaluation of a patient's overall health but have not yet been validated in patient selection for mPCA treatment. This study aims to elucidate the optimal chemotherapy treatment of vulnerable OA with mPCA and understand the geriatric factors that affect outcomes in this population. METHODS/DESIGN The GIANT (ECOG-ACRIN EA2186) study is multicenter, randomized phase II trial enrolling patients over age 70 with newly diagnosed mPCA. This study utilizes a screening geriatric assessment (GA) which characterizes patients as fit, vulnerable, or frail. Patients with mild abnormalities in functional status and/or cognition, moderate comorbidities, or over age 80 are considered vulnerable. Enrolled patients are randomized to one of two dose-reduced treatment regimens (gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel every other week, or dose-reduced 5-fluoruracil (5FU)/ liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) every other week). GA and quality of life (QoL) evaluations are completed prior to treatment initiation and at each disease evaluation. Overall survival (OS) is the primary endpoint, with secondary endpoints including progression free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Enrolled patients will be stratified by age (70-74 vs ≥75) and ECOG PS (0-1 vs 2). Additional endpoints of interest for OA include evaluation of risk factors identified through GA, QoL evaluation, and toxicities of interest for older adults. Correlative studies include assessment of pro-inflammatory biomarkers of aging in the blood (IL-6, CRP) and imaging evaluation of sarcopenia as predictors of treatment tolerance. DISCUSSION The GIANT study is the first randomized, prospective national trial evaluating vulnerable OA with mPCA aimed at developing a tailored treatment approach for this patient population. This trial has the potential to establish a new way of objectively selecting vulnerable OA with mPCA for modified treatment and to establish a new standard of care in this growing patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT04233866.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Efrat Dotan
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Paul Catalano
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute - ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Leon Lenchik
- Department of Radiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Robert Boutin
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Xin Yao
- ThedaCare Regional Cancer Center-Appelton, WI, USA
| | - Helga S Marques
- Department of Biostatistics and Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Dina Ioffe
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David B Zhen
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Daneng Li
- Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Lynne I Wagner
- Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Melissa A Simon
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Health Equity Transformation, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Terence Z Wong
- Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotheranostics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Peter J O'Dwyer
- University of Pennsylvania and Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cook S, Munteanu C, Papadopoulos E, Abrams H, Stinson JN, Pitters E, Stephens D, Lumchick M, Emmenegger U, Koneru R, Papadakos J, Shahrokni A, Durbano S, Menjak I, Mehta R, Haase K, Jang R, Krzyzanowska MK, Dale C, Jones J, Lemonde M, Alibhai S, Puts M. The development of an electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive health assessment for my plan (CHAMP). J Geriatr Oncol 2023; 14:101384. [PMID: 36216760 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.09.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2022] [Revised: 09/06/2022] [Accepted: 09/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Geriatric assessment (GA) provides information on key health domains of older adults and is recommended to help inform cancer treatment decisions and cancer care. However, GA is not feasible in many health institutions due to lack of geriatric staff and/or resources. To increase accessibility to GA and improve treatment decision making for older adults with cancer (≥65 years), we developed a self-reported, electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive Assessment for My Plan (CHAMP). MATERIALS AND METHODS Older adults with cancer were invited to join user-centered design sessions to develop the layout and content of the tool. Subsequently, they participated in usability testing to test the usability of the tool (ease of use, acceptability, etc.). Design sessions were also conducted with oncology clinicians (oncologists and nurses) to develop the tool's clinician interface. GA assessment questions and GA recommendations were guided by a systematic review and Delphi expert panel. RESULTS A total of seventeen older adults participated in the study. Participants were mainly males (82.4%) and 75% were aged 75 years and older. Nine oncology clinicians participated in design sessions. Older adults and clinicians agreed that the tool was user-friendly. Domains in the final CHAMP tool (with questions and recommendations) included functional status, falls risk, cognitive impairment, nutrition, medication review, social supports, depression, substance use disorder, and miscellaneous items. DISCUSSION CHAMP was designed for use by older adults and oncologists and may enhance access to GA for older adults with cancer. The next phase of the CHAMP study will involve field validation in oncology clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Cook
- Technologies for Aging Gracefully Lab, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Cosmin Munteanu
- Technologies for Aging Gracefully Lab, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Howard Abrams
- Openlab, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada; Department of Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Jennifer N Stinson
- Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada; Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Urban Emmenegger
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Rama Koneru
- Department of Medical Oncology, R.S. McLaughlin Durham Regional Cancer Centre, Lakeridge Health, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Janet Papadakos
- Cancer Education, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Armin Shahrokni
- Department of Geriatrics and Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States of America
| | - Sara Durbano
- Openlab, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Ines Menjak
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Rajin Mehta
- Division of Geriatric Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kristen Haase
- School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Raymond Jang
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Monika K Krzyzanowska
- Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Craig Dale
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Jennifer Jones
- ELLICSR: Health, Wellness and Cancer Survivorship Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Manon Lemonde
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shabbir Alibhai
- Department of Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Martine Puts
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Brugnaro BH, Vieira FN, Fernandes G, de Camargo OK, Fumincelli L, de Campos AC, Pavão SL, Rocha NACF. Exploration of the Feasibility of Remote Assessment of Functioning in Children and Adolescents with Developmental Disabilities: Parents' Perspectives and Related Contextual Factors. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:15101. [PMID: 36429822 PMCID: PMC9690884 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192215101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Revised: 11/09/2022] [Accepted: 11/10/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted face-to-face health services, leveraging telehealth strategies. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate, from a parent's perspective, the feasibility of a remote assessment of functioning in children with developmental disabilities during the pandemic and related contextual factors, based on how parents carry out the assessment. Parents of children with developmental disabilities (mean age = 7.56 ± 3.68) responded to a remote assessment via electronic forms and telephone interview. We analyzed parents' perspectives about the feasibility of the assessment. We also tested the association between feasibility score and sociodemographics/pandemic experience. Regression analysis tested if children's functioning characteristics predicted feasibility. A total of 57 mothers completed the remote assessment, and more than 95% did not report difficulties in accessing/responding to electronic forms. They scored remote assessment as easy and feasible, and reported no difficulties with telephone interview. Greater feasibility rates were related to lower maternal age (rho Spearman = -0.290; p = 0.029). The model shows that children's characteristics predicted 20.4% of feasibility (p < 0.005). Remote assessment showed to be feasible. Younger mothers might consider easier-to-use technologies, beyond considering remote assessment more viable. These results can guide the next steps in research and remote clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beatriz Helena Brugnaro
- Child Development Analysis Laboratory (LADI), Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos 13565-905, SP, Brazil
| | - Fabiana Nascimento Vieira
- Child Development Analysis Laboratory (LADI), Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos 13565-905, SP, Brazil
| | - Gesica Fernandes
- Child Development Analysis Laboratory (LADI), Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos 13565-905, SP, Brazil
| | - Olaf Kraus de Camargo
- CanChild, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7, Canada
| | - Laís Fumincelli
- Department of Nursing, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos 13565-905, SP, Brazil
| | - Ana Carolina de Campos
- Child Development Analysis Laboratory (LADI), Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos 13565-905, SP, Brazil
| | - Silvia Letícia Pavão
- Department of Prevention and Rehabilitation in Physical Therapy, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba 80060-000, PR, Brazil
| | - Nelci Adriana Cicuto Ferreira Rocha
- Child Development Analysis Laboratory (LADI), Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos 13565-905, SP, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kitamura H, Nakazawa J, Nagashima F, Andou M, Furuse J. The Prognostic Utility of a Geriatric Assessment for Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Gemcitabine-based Chemotherapy: A Prospective Observational Study. Intern Med 2022. [PMID: 36223928 DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.9689-22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effect of a pretreatment geriatric assessment on the clinical outcomes in older patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) scheduled to receive gemcitabine (GEM)/GEM+nab-paclitaxel (GnP). Patients Older patients with unresectable PDAC scheduled to receive GEM/GnP who visited Kyorin University Hospital and cooperating institutions were enrolled and followed from April 2015 to March 2020. The maximum observation period was two years. All patients underwent a cancer-specific geriatric assessment (CSGA) and optional geriatric assessment (GA) before treatment initiation and two months after the start of treatment. The patients' background characteristics, tumor progression, tumor site, and regimen (GEM/GnP) were examined in a Cox proportional hazards model. The relationship between the overall survival (OS) and GA score was also determined. Eligible patients (age ≥70 years old with histopathologically confirmed unresectable or recurrent PDAC) were scheduled to receive first-line chemotherapy. Results The performance status (PS) and activities of daily living (ADL)/instrumental ADL (IADL) scores at baseline correlated with the OS. Furthermore, even in cases with normal baseline values, lower Frontal Assessment Battery scores and higher Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form scores after treatment initiation were significantly correlated with OS. Conclusion The baseline PS, ADL, and IADL may be prognostic factors in older PDAC patients. In addition, a normal frontal lobe function and depression scores prior to treatment initiation that rapidly worsened during treatment were independently associated with a reduced OS. Selecting appropriate interventions and improving the therapeutic environment may prolong the OS in such patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiroshi Kitamura
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kyorin University Faculty of Medicine, Japan
| | - Junichi Nakazawa
- Digestive and Lifestyle Diseases, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Japan
| | - Fumio Nagashima
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kyorin University Faculty of Medicine, Japan
| | - Masahiko Andou
- Center for Advanced Medicine and Clinical Research, Nagoya University, Japan
| | - Junji Furuse
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kyorin University Faculty of Medicine, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Webb T, Verduzco-Aguirre HC, Rao AR, Ramaswamy A, Noronha V. Addressing the Needs of Older Adults With Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Settings. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2022; 42:1-10. [PMID: 35427187 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_349829] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
The number of older adults in the world is projected to increase steeply over the next 30 years; most older adults will live in low- and middle-income countries. This will have a direct impact on the global cancer burden, as cancer is largely a disease of aging. A revolution in the way we care for older adults in low- and middle-income settings is needed to meet rapidly rising demands. Regardless of a nation's relative wealth or resources, implementing the geriatric assessment in cancer care has presented a challenge because of omission of the principles of geriatric oncology from formal training and continuing education, lack of time, and a shortage of qualified personnel. To meet the challenge of caring for older adults globally, we must: (1) re-imagine aging-focused training for providers and nurses, (2) create and strengthen collaborations/partnerships between geriatric oncology teams and aging-service organizations, and (3) increase advocacy for age-friendly health care policy. By harnessing technology, the reach of specialized oncology education and care can be extended even-or especially-to low- and middle-income settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tracy Webb
- Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC
| | | | - Abhijith Rajaram Rao
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Anant Ramaswamy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | - Vanita Noronha
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
The Development of Geriatric Assessment and Intervention Guidelines for an Online Geriatric Assessment Tool: A Canadian Modified Delphi Panel Study. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:853-868. [PMID: 35200572 PMCID: PMC8870933 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29020073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Revised: 01/29/2022] [Accepted: 02/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: There are no guidelines available for what assessment tools to use in a patient’s self-completed online geriatric assessment (GA) with management recommendations. Therefore, we used a modified Delphi approach with Canadian expert clinicians to develop a consensus online GA plus recommendations tool. Methods: The panel consisted of experts in geriatrics, oncology, nursing, and pharmacy. Experts were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of assessments and interventions to be included in an online GA for patients. The items included in the first round were based on guidelines for in-person GA and literature review. The first two rounds were conducted using an online survey. A virtual 2 h meeting was held to discuss the items where no consensus was reached and then voted on in the final round. Results: 34 experts were invited, and 32 agreed to participate. In round 1, there were 85 items; in round 2, 50 items; and in round 3, 25 items. The final tool consists of fall history, assistive device use, weight loss, medication review, need help taking medication, social supports, depressive symptoms, self-reported vision and hearing, and current smoking status and alcohol use. Conclusion: This first multidisciplinary consensus on online GA will benefit research and clinical care for older adults with cancer.
Collapse
|
11
|
The reliability of patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain when answered in online, telephone, and face-to-face interview format. JOURNAL OF BASIC AND CLINICAL HEALTH SCIENCES 2021. [DOI: 10.30621/jbachs.995009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
12
|
Donison V, Chesney TR, Wills A, Santos B, McLean B, Alqurini N, Hossain N, Durbano S, Lemonde M, Alibhai SMH, Puts M. Self-management interventions for issues identified in a geriatric assessment: A systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2021; 70:1268-1279. [PMID: 34902156 DOI: 10.1111/jgs.17601] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2021] [Revised: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 11/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND With the development of electronic geriatric assessment (GA), recommendations for self-management can be provided to patients without the presence of health care providers. Our research question was to identify what self-management interventions can be used by patients to address issues identified in GA and to determine their effect on patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life, health, mood, cognition, and functional status. METHODS Searches were conducted on July 13, 2021, by a health sciences librarian in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library. A combination of database-specific subject headings and text word searches was used such as self-management, a key word for each of the geriatric assessment domains and older adults. Two independent reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts for inclusion and abstracted data. Narrative synthesis was used to summarize findings. RESULTS Among 28,520 abstracts reviewed, 34 randomized controlled trials were included. The most frequently studied geriatric domains were mood (n = 13 studies), mobility/falls (n = 12), quality of life (n = 11), and functional status (n = 7). The majority of studies demonstrated positive effects on mobility/falls (9 of 12), pain (3 of 5), comorbidity (4 of 4), and medication management (4 of 4). Most studies were of low to moderate quality. All geriatric domains were targeted in at least one study. CONCLUSIONS Low- to moderate-quality studies show a variety of effective self-efficacy-targeted interventions exist for older adults to improve several important geriatric domains and related outcomes. However, long-term effects, validation, and scalability of these interventions remain largely unknown.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valentina Donison
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Tyler R Chesney
- Department of Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.,Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.,Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Aria Wills
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Brenda Santos
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Bianca McLean
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Naser Alqurini
- Central Department of Primary Health Care, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait
| | - Nazia Hossain
- Postgraduate Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Sara Durbano
- Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
| | - Manon Lemonde
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, Canada
| | - Shabbir M H Alibhai
- Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.,Department of Medicine, Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Martine Puts
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Crane S, DiValerio Gibbs K, Nosich R, Yang Y, Pawelek E. Challenges in the implementation of electronic systems for patient report of symptoms in oncology: a scoping review. JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT AND HEALTH POLICY 2021; 5:31. [PMID: 38919373 PMCID: PMC11198977 DOI: 10.21037/jhmhp-20-108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/27/2024]
Abstract
Background Under-recognition and under-treatment of symptoms are prevalent throughout the health care system in the United States. While the reasons for this are complex, it is widely recognized that electronic symptom reports can improve clinicians' ability to manage symptoms. However, electronic symptom reporting has yet to be widely implemented. Electronic systems are most effective when tailored to the specific patient population or clinical setting. For example, numerous oncology-focused electronic symptom reporting systems have been developed for patients with cancer undergoing treatment in the United States. The objective of this scoping review was to identify challenges that arose in the implementation of electronic systems for patient-reported symptoms in oncology clinical practice, and approaches that were taken or recommended to overcome those challenges. Methods This scoping review involved comprehensive searches of Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, which yielded 3,133 articles. Following screening, 20 research studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Data were systematically extracted from the articles using a qualitative content analysis. Results Challenges identified were thematically categorized as technical issues, system usability issues, patient lack of comfort/knowledge of technology, incomplete/missing data, lack of patient use of the system, other patient issues, difficulties timing completion with clinical processes, lack of clinic staff involvement/engagement, and lack of clinician comfort/knowledge regarding the use of patient-reported outcome data. Discussion The findings of this review highlight challenges that need to be addressed when implementing an electronic symptom reporting system for patients with cancer, and potential strategies for overcoming these challenges. This review may help hospital administrators and clinicians prepare for and improve the implementation of electronic symptom reporting systems into clinical practice, thereby providing evidence to enable their broader use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stacey Crane
- Cizik School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Karen DiValerio Gibbs
- Cizik School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Rebecca Nosich
- Harris College of Nursing & Health Sciences, Texas Christian University, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yijiong Yang
- Cizik School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Elizabeth Pawelek
- Cizik School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Nipp RD, Subbiah IM, Loscalzo M. Convergence of Geriatrics and Palliative Care to Deliver Personalized Supportive Care for Older Adults With Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:2185-2194. [PMID: 34043435 PMCID: PMC8260927 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.00158] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2021] [Revised: 02/07/2021] [Accepted: 02/23/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan D. Nipp
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Ishwaria M. Subbiah
- Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, Division of Cancer Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Pérez-de-Acha-Chávez A, Gómez-Moreno C, Aguilar-Velazco JC, Moreno-García ML, Pérez-de-Celis-Herrero C, Lira-Huerta E, Chavarri-Guerra Y, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E. Feasibility and reliability of a self-administered geriatric assessment tool for Spanish-speaking Mexican older adults with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol 2021; 12:1266-1269. [PMID: 34090842 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2021.05.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2021] [Revised: 04/27/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Pérez-de-Acha-Chávez
- Department of Geriatrics, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Carolina Gómez-Moreno
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - José Carlos Aguilar-Velazco
- Department of Geriatrics, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - María Luisa Moreno-García
- Department of Geriatrics, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | - Ernesto Lira-Huerta
- Faculty of Computer Sciences, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
| | - Yanin Chavarri-Guerra
- Department of Hemato-Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis
- Department of Geriatrics, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Dale W, Williams GR, R. 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. JCO Oncol Pract 2021; 17:336-344. [PMID: 33064058 PMCID: PMC8462667 DOI: 10.1200/op.20.00442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 97] [Impact Index Per Article: 32.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Dale
- City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Sweatha Katta
- American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
McLean B, Hossain N, Donison V, Gray M, Durbano S, Haase K, Alibhai SMH, Puts M. Providing Medical Information to Older Adults in a Web-Based Environment: Systematic Review. JMIR Aging 2021; 4:e24092. [PMID: 33560228 PMCID: PMC8294635 DOI: 10.2196/24092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2020] [Revised: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2021] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Cancer is a disease that predominantly affects older adults, and several organizations recommend the completion of a geriatric assessment to help with cancer treatment decision-making. Owing to a shortage of geriatric teams and the vast number of older adults diagnosed with cancer each year, a web-based geriatric assessment may improve access to geriatric assessment for older adults. We systematically reviewed the literature to obtain the latest evidence for the design of our web-based geriatric assessment tool Comprehensive Health Assessment for My Plan. Objective This review aimed to probe the following questions: what is the impact of providing health test results to older adults in a web-based environment without the presence of a health care provider for patient-centered outcomes, including satisfaction, perceived harm, empowerment, quality of life, and health care use (eg, hospitalization, physician visits, emergency room visits, and costs), and what recommendations do older adults and developers have for designing future apps or websites for older adults? Methods This systematic review was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement. Studies were limited to publications in English that examined a web-based tool that provided test results to older adults (aged ≥65 years) without the presence of a health care provider. A health sciences librarian performed the search on November 29, 2019, on the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2018. The findings are summarized narratively and in tabular format. Results A total of 26,898 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers, of which 94 studies were selected for a full-text review, and 9 studies were included in this review. There were only 2 randomized controlled trials of high quality that explored the effects of receiving health care results on the web via eHealth tools for older adults or provided evidence-based recommendations for designing such tools. Older adults were generally satisfied with receiving screening results via eHealth tools, and several studies suggested that receiving health screening results electronically improved participants’ quality of life. However, user interfaces that were not designed with older adults in mind and older adults’ lack of confidence in navigating eHealth tools proved challenging to eHealth uptake and use. All 9 studies included in this systematic review made recommendations on how to design eHealth tools that are intuitive and useful for older adults. Conclusions eHealth tools should incorporate specific elements to ensure usability for older adults. However, more research is required to fully elucidate the impact of receiving screening and results via eHealth tools without the presence of a health care provider for patient-centered outcomes in this target population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bianca McLean
- Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Nazia Hossain
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Valentina Donison
- Lawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Mikaela Gray
- Gerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Kristen Haase
- School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Shabbir Muhammad Husayn Alibhai
- Department of Medicine, Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Martine Puts
- Lawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Okoli GN, Stirling M, Racovitan F, Lam OL, Reddy VK, Copstein L, Hsu T, Abou-Setta AM, Dawe DE. Integration of geriatric assessment into clinical oncology practice: A scoping review. Curr Probl Cancer 2021; 45:100699. [PMID: 33468334 DOI: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2020.100699] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2020] [Accepted: 12/04/2020] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
Sixty percent of newly diagnosed cancers occur in older adults and more complex planning is required to sustain quality care for older populations. Individualized care incorporating geriatric assessment can predict early mortality and treatment toxicity for older cancer patients. We mapped and summarized the available evidence on the integration of geriatric assessment into clinical oncology practice, and ascertained which domains have been implemented. We systematically searched bibliographic databases and trial registries for reports of clinical studies, clinical practice guidelines, systematic and non-systematic reviews, and grey literature published in English. We gathered data on study characteristics, geriatric domains and strategies evaluated, and relevant study objectives and findings. From a total of 10,124 identified citations, 38 articles met our eligibility criteria, 3 of which were clinical practice guidelines. Nearly half of these articles came from the United States. Domains of the geriatric assessment implemented in studies ranged from 1 to 12, with varied combinations. We identified 27 studies on strategies for implementing geriatric assessment and 24 studies on feasibility of implementing geriatric assessment, into clinical oncology practice. We also identified 3 main geriatric assessment models: 2 from the United States and 1 from Australia. Furthermore, we identified 2 reviews that reported varied components of geriatric assessment models. There is increasingly robust evidence to implement formal geriatric assessment in oncology practice. There remains a great deal of variation in the tools recommended to address each of the domains in a geriatric assessment, with only 1 guideline (American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline) settling on a specific best practice. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/mec93.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George N Okoli
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | | | - Florentin Racovitan
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Otto Lt Lam
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Viraj K Reddy
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Leslie Copstein
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Tina Hsu
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ahmed M Abou-Setta
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - David E Dawe
- CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Research Institute in Oncology and Hematology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Nipp RD, Horick NK, Deal AM, Rogak LJ, Fuh C, Greer JA, Dueck AC, Basch E, Temel JS, El-Jawahri A. Differential effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention based on the age of patients with advanced cancer. Ann Oncol 2021; 31:123-130. [PMID: 31912785 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2019.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2019] [Revised: 09/19/2019] [Accepted: 09/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Symptom monitoring interventions enhance patient outcomes, including quality of life (QoL), health care utilization, and survival, but it remains unclear whether older and younger patients with cancer derive similar benefits. We explored whether age moderates the improved outcomes seen with an outpatient electronic symptom monitoring intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS We carried out a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of 766 patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors. Patients received an electronic symptom monitoring intervention integrated with oncology care or usual oncology care alone. The intervention consisted of patients reporting their symptoms, which were provided to their physicians at clinic visits, and nurses receiving alerts for severe/worsening symptoms. We used regression models to determine whether age (older or younger than 70 years) moderated the effects of the intervention on QoL (EuroQol EQ-5D), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival outcomes. RESULTS Enrollment rates for younger (589/777 = 75.8%) and older (177/230 = 77.0%) patients did not differ. Older patients (median age = 75 years, range 70-91 years) were more likely to have an education level of high school or less (26.6% versus 20.9%, P = 0.029) and to be computer inexperienced (50.3% versus 23.4%, P < 0.001) compared with younger patients (median age = 58 years, range 26-69 years). Younger patients receiving the symptom monitoring intervention experienced lower risk of ER visits [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, P = 0.011] and improved survival (HR = 0.76, P = 0.011) compared with younger patients receiving usual care. However, older patients did not experience significantly lower risk of ER visits (HR = 0.90, P = 0.613) or improved survival (HR = 1.06, P = 0.753) with the intervention. We found no moderation effects based on age for QoL and risk of hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced cancer, age moderated the effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention on the risk of ER visits and survival, but not QoL. Symptom monitoring interventions may need to be tailored to the unique needs of older adults with cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R D Nipp
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology & Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
| | - N K Horick
- Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA
| | - A M Deal
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology & Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
| | - L J Rogak
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - C Fuh
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology & Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - J A Greer
- Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - A C Dueck
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Division of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, USA
| | - E Basch
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology & Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
| | - J S Temel
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology & Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - A El-Jawahri
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology & Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
O'Donovan A, Leech M. Personalised treatment for older adults with cancer: The role of frailty assessment. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol 2020; 16:30-38. [PMID: 33102819 PMCID: PMC7568178 DOI: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2020.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2020] [Revised: 09/04/2020] [Accepted: 09/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
It is widely accepted in clinical practice that chronological age is a poor predictor of treatment tolerance and outcomes in older adults with cancer. Intrinsic vulnerability is more a function of underlying frailty, rather than chronological age. Frailty is a state of increased vulnerability to stressors, such as cancer and its treatment, which can lead to adverse health outcomes for patients. Capturing this heterogeneity in reserve capacity is the cornerstone of management in geriatricmedicine, but remains poorly understood or adopted in radiation oncology. A two-step approach, using a shorter screening tool, followed by full assessment for those who need it, is the mostresourceful way of implementing frailty assessment in radiotherapy departments. It is important for radiation oncology professionals to identify frailty and to use this information in multidisciplinary decision making in order to develop a personalised radiotherapy approach for the older person. There are many ways we can effectively use this information, such as considering treatment fractionation schedules that would limit the burden of travel for those with social frailty, or reviewing the range of modalities at our disposal, which might limit toxicity in the older person at high risk of deterioration during treatment. Frailty assessment is not carried out in many radiotherapy departments presently, but there are many international models to use as exemplars as to how it may be implemented in clinical practice. There are many opportunities for further research and role development in this field at the current time.
Collapse
|
21
|
Kouri A, Yamada J, Sale JEM, Straus SE, Gupta S. Primary Care Pre-Visit Electronic Patient Questionnaire for Asthma: Uptake Analysis and Predictor Modeling. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22:e19358. [PMID: 32945779 PMCID: PMC7532461 DOI: 10.2196/19358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Revised: 07/22/2020] [Accepted: 07/26/2020] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Background mHealth tablet-based interventions are increasingly being studied and deployed in various health care settings, yet little knowledge exists regarding patient uptake and acceptance or how patient demographics influence these important implementation metrics. Objective To determine which factors influence the uptake and successful completion of an mHealth tablet questionnaire by analyzing its implementation in a primary care setting. Methods We prospectively studied a patient-facing electronic touch-tablet asthma questionnaire deployed as part of the Electronic Asthma Management System. We describe tablet uptake and completion rates and corresponding predictor models for these behaviors. Results The tablet was offered to and accepted by patients in 891/1715 (52.0%) visits. Patients refused the tablet in 33.0% (439/1330) visits in which it was successfully offered. Patients aged older than 65 years of age (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.33-3.95) and with concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.05-4.67) were more likely to refuse the tablet, and those on an asthma medication (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30-0.99) were less likely to refuse it. Once accepted, the questionnaire was completed in 784/891 (88.0%) instances, with those on an asthma medication (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.88) being less likely to leave it incomplete. Conclusions Older age predicted initial tablet refusal but not tablet questionnaire completion, suggesting that perceptions of mHealth among older adults may negatively impact uptake, independent of usability. The influence of being on an asthma medication suggests that disease severity may also mediate mHealth acceptance. Although use of mHealth questionnaires is growing rapidly across health care settings and diseases, few studies describe their real-world acceptance and its predictors. Our results should be complemented by qualitative methods to identify barriers and enablers to uptake and may inform technological and implementation strategies to drive successful usage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Kouri
- Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Janet Yamada
- Daphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Joanna E M Sale
- Li Ka Sing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sharon E Straus
- Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Samir Gupta
- Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Results from a multidisciplinary clinic guided by geriatric assessment before stem cell transplantation in older adults. Blood Adv 2020; 3:3488-3498. [PMID: 31725894 DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2019] [Accepted: 10/03/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Limitations found on geriatric assessment (GA) track with worse outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We report on a multidisciplinary team clinic (MDC), consisting of a cancer-specific GA and a multidisciplinary team of providers, to assess candidacy and create an individualized optimization plan for allogeneic HCT candidates aged ≥60 years and autologous HCT and adoptive T-cell therapy candidates aged ≥70 years. Among the 247 patients evaluated in the MDC, allogeneic HCT candidates comprised the majority (60%), followed by autologous HCT (37%) with occasional older cellular therapy candidates (3%). Almost all patients meeting program-required minimum ages for MDC optimization at our institution were assessed (98%). Relative to historical control subjects undergoing GA alone, allogeneic HCT patients aged ≥60 years who underwent MDC appraisal had similar frequencies of high-risk disease, reduced intensity regimens, and high comorbidity but fewer GA-graded functional impairments. The MDC cohort experienced fewer inpatient deaths, shorter length of stay, and fewer discharges to nursing facilities compared with control subjects. Improvements in early mortality were observed over time; 1-year overall survival improved from 43% in the pre-MDC era to 70% in the recent MDC era, and 1-year nonrelapse mortality decreased from 43% to 18%. The 31 autologous HCT recipients aged ≥70 years optimized by the MDC achieved 0% nonrelapse mortality and 97% overall survival at 1 year. A GA-guided MDC for older HCT candidates is feasible and seems to reduce transplant-associated morbidity and mortality. An MDC should encourage broader and safer utilization of transplantation in older patients.
Collapse
|
23
|
Tavernier SS, Beck SL. Design and Evaluation of the Electronic Patient-Generated Index. Nurs Res 2020; 69:227-232. [PMID: 31688339 PMCID: PMC10004094 DOI: 10.1097/nnr.0000000000000405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The patient-generated index (PGI) is an individualized measure of health-related quality of life. Previous work testing the PGI in the oncology setting identified threats to content validity due to navigational and computational completion errors using the paper format. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this pilot study was to refine and evaluate the usability and acceptability of an electronic PGI (ePGI) prototype in the outpatient radiation oncology setting. METHODS This pilot study used adaptive agile web design, cognitive interview, and survey methods. RESULTS Three iterations of testing and refining the ePGI were required. Fifteen patients completed the refined ePGI using touch screen tablets with little or no coaching required. Nearly all participants rated the ePGI as "easy" or "very" easy to use, understand, and navigate. Up to one half stated they did not share this type of information with their clinician but felt the information on the ePGI would be useful to discuss when making decisions about their care. Eight clinicians participated, all of whom felt the ePGI was a useful tool to initiate dialogue about quality of life issues, reveal infrequent or unusual effects of treatment, and assist with symptom management. DISCUSSION The pilot study indicates the ePGI may be useful for use at the point of care. Larger studies are needed to explore the influence it may have in decision-making and restructuring patient/provider communication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan S Tavernier
- Susan S. Tavernier, PhD, APRN-CNS, AOCN, is Assistant Professor, Idaho State University College of Nursing, Meridian. At the time this research was completed, she was Postdoctoral Fellow at University of Utah College of Nursing, Salt Lake City. Susan L. Beck, PhD, APRN, AOCN, FAAN, is Professor-Emerita, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. At the time this research was completed, she was Professor and Robert S. and Beth M. Carter Endowed Chair, University of Utah College of Nursing, Salt Lake City
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
McKenzie GAG, Bullock AF, Greenley SL, Lind MJ, Johnson MJ, Pearson M. Implementation of geriatric assessment in oncology settings: A systematic realist review. J Geriatr Oncol 2020; 12:22-33. [PMID: 32680826 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2020.07.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2020] [Revised: 05/04/2020] [Accepted: 07/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gordon A G McKenzie
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom.
| | - Alex F Bullock
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah L Greenley
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Lind
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom
| | - Miriam J Johnson
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Pearson
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Allam Medical Building, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Farrington N, Richardson A, Bridges J. Interventions for older people having cancer treatment: A scoping review. J Geriatr Oncol 2020; 11:769-783. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.09.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2019] [Revised: 07/24/2019] [Accepted: 09/25/2019] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
|
26
|
Meirte J, Hellemans N, Anthonissen M, Denteneer L, Maertens K, Moortgat P, Van Daele U. Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review. JMIR Perioper Med 2020; 3:e15588. [PMID: 33393920 PMCID: PMC7709853 DOI: 10.2196/15588] [Citation(s) in RCA: 109] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2019] [Revised: 12/06/2019] [Accepted: 02/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in clinical practice and research. The growth of electronic health technologies provides unprecedented opportunities to systematically collect information via PROMs. Objective The aim of this study was to provide an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers, and disadvantages of the digital collection of qualitative electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs). Methods We performed a systematic review of articles retrieved from PubMED and Web of Science. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during all stages. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records, from which 32 met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The relevant ePROM-related information was extracted from each study. Results Results were clustered as benefits and disadvantages. Reported benefits of ePROMs were greater patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, similar or faster completion time, higher data quality and response rates, and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Tablets were the most used ePROM modality (14/32, 44%), and, as a platform, Web-based systems were used the most (26/32, 81%). Potential disadvantages of ePROMs include privacy protection, a possible large initial financial investment, and exclusion of certain populations or the “digital divide.” Conclusions In conclusion, ePROMs offer many advantages over paper-based collection of patient-reported outcomes. Overall, ePROMs are preferred over paper-based methods, improve data quality, result in similar or faster completion time, decrease costs, and facilitate clinical decision making and symptom management. Disadvantages regarding ePROMs have been outlined, and suggestions are provided to overcome the barriers. We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42018094795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94795
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jill Meirte
- Department of Rehabilitation Science and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.,Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy (REVAKI-MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Nick Hellemans
- Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy (REVAKI-MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Mieke Anthonissen
- Department of Rehabilitation Science and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.,Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy (REVAKI-MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Lenie Denteneer
- Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy (REVAKI-MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Koen Maertens
- Department of Rehabilitation Science and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - Peter Moortgat
- Department of Rehabilitation Science and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium
| | - Ulrike Van Daele
- Department of Rehabilitation Science and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium.,Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy (REVAKI-MOVANT), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Loh KP, Kaushik R, Mohile SG, Ogie S, Kadambi S, Zittel J, Yousefi-Nooraie R, Moorthi K, Patil A, Sanapala C, Yang S, Ramsdale E. Speeding the dissemination and implementation of geriatric assessment: What we can learn from the business world. J Geriatr Oncol 2020; 11:1170-1174. [PMID: 32220588 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2020.03.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2020] [Revised: 03/08/2020] [Accepted: 03/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Kah Poh Loh
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Ramya Kaushik
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Supriya G Mohile
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Samuel Ogie
- School of Business, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Sindhuja Kadambi
- School of Business, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Jason Zittel
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Reza Yousefi-Nooraie
- Department of Public Health, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | | | - Amita Patil
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Chandrika Sanapala
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Shuhan Yang
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | - Erika Ramsdale
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Klepin HD, Ritchie E, Major-Elechi B, Le-Rademacher J, Seisler D, Storrick L, Sanford BL, Marcucci G, Zhao W, Geyer SA, Ballman KV, Powell BL, Baer MR, Stock W, Cohen HJ, Stone RM, Larson RA, Uy GL. Geriatric assessment among older adults receiving intensive therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: Report of CALGB 361006 (Alliance). J Geriatr Oncol 2020; 11:107-113. [PMID: 31668825 PMCID: PMC6943189 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2019] [Revised: 10/10/2019] [Accepted: 10/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To demonstrate feasibility of performing geriatric assessment (GA) in the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and to explore the utility of GA to characterize treatment tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a multisite companion study (CALGB 361006) to CALGB 11001, a phase 2 trial of adults ≥60 years old with newly diagnosed FLT3- mutated AML, testing the efficacy of adding sorafenib to intensive chemotherapy. On 361006, a GA was administered prior to induction and prior to post-remission therapy. The GA is divided into items requiring administration by a health care professional (HCP) and patient self-administered questionnaires. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, time to GA completion, difficulty with GA administration, percent of patients requiring assistance, and satisfaction. Change in GA measures pre- and post-induction were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar's tests. RESULTS The recruitment rate was 80% (N = 43, median age 68 years). Median completion time of the GA was 30 min; (10 and 21 min for HCP and patients, respectively). HCP reported no difficulty completing assessments (100%). Most patients completed questionnaires without assistance (77%), and were satisfied with the length (89%). Self-reported physical function, mental health, social activity and nutritional parameters worsened after induction. CONCLUSION GA is feasible to administer in the setting of intensive induction for older adults with AML in the NCTN and provides evidence of the impact of induction therapy on physical and emotional health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heidi D Klepin
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America.
| | - Ellen Ritchie
- Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America
| | - Brittny Major-Elechi
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Jennifer Le-Rademacher
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Drew Seisler
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Libby Storrick
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Ben L Sanford
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - Guido Marcucci
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, United States of America
| | - Weiqiang Zhao
- The Ohio State University Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, United States of America
| | - Susan A Geyer
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States of America
| | - Karla V Ballman
- Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, United States of America
| | - Bayard L Powell
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America
| | - Maria R Baer
- Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
| | - Wendy Stock
- University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, United States of America
| | - Harvey Jay Cohen
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - Richard M Stone
- Dana-Farber/Partners CancerCare, Boston, MA, United States of America
| | - Richard A Larson
- University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, United States of America
| | - Geoffrey L Uy
- Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Ivatury SJ, Hazard-Jenkins HW, Brooks GA, McCleary NJ, Wong SL, Schrag D. Translation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Trials to Everyday Practice. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27:65-72. [PMID: 31452053 PMCID: PMC6925618 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07749-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical trials in oncology evaluating the effects of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) collection have found that monitoring of symptoms with PROs is associated with improved clinical care through reduced acute care utilization and decreased patient symptom burden. This educational review will evaluate strategies for systematic PRO integration into everyday oncology clinical practice. METHODS We outline key considerations for using PROs in clinical practice, highlighting evidence from published studies. We also discuss the benefits and challenges of PRO implementation in oncology. RESULTS Implementing PRO collection in clinical practice can improve care delivery and facilitate patient-centered clinical research. Considerations for using PROs in clinical practice include choice of instrument, method of delivery, and frequency of query. Challenges with implementing systematic PRO collection include the costs and resources needed for implementation, impact on clinical workflow, and controlling/monitoring physician burnout. CONCLUSIONS While challenges exist in terms of financial resources and staff participation/burnout, patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice provide a number of benefits, including symptom monitoring, clinical research, and potential real-time personalized clinical-decision support.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Srinivas Joga Ivatury
- Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
- Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH, USA.
| | | | - Gabriel A Brooks
- Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA
- Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH, USA
| | | | - Sandra L Wong
- Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA
- Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, NH, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Nathwani N, Kurtin SE, Lipe B, Mohile SG, Catamero DD, Wujcik D, Birchard K, Davis A, Dudley W, Stricker CT, Wildes TM. Integrating Touchscreen-Based Geriatric Assessment and Frailty Screening for Adults With Multiple Myeloma to Drive Personalized Treatment Decisions. JCO Oncol Pract 2019; 16:e92-e99. [PMID: 31765266 DOI: 10.1200/jop.19.00208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Geriatric assessment (GA) results predict toxicity/survival in older adults, yet GA is not routinely used in care for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We tested a tablet-based modified GA (mGA) providing real-time results to clinicians. METHODS One hundred sixty-five patients with MM aged ≥ 65 years facing a treatment decision from 4 sites completed a tablet-based mGA with Katz Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Lawton Instrumental ADL, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and variables from the Cancer and Aging Research Group's Chemotherapy Toxicity Calculator. Providers reviewed the assessment results at the treatment visit. RESULTS Patients were white (72%; n = 86), mean age was 72 years (range, 65-85 years), and averaged 7.71 minutes (range, 2-17 minutes) for survey completion. Providers averaged 3.2 minutes (range, 1-10 minutes) to review mGA results. Using International Myeloma Working Group frailty score, patients were fit (39%; n = 64), intermediate fit (33%; n = 55), or frail (28%; n = 46). Providers selected more aggressive treatments in 16.3% of patients and decreased treatment intensity in 34% of patients; treatment intensification was more common for fit patients and milder treatments for frail patients (χ2 = 20.02; P < .0001). Transplant eligibility significantly correlated with fit status and transplant ineligibility with frail status (P = .004). Outcomes on 144 patients 3 months post study visit showed 19.4% (n = 28) had grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities, 38.9% (n = 56) had dose modifications, and 18% (n = 26) had early therapy cessation. CONCLUSION Limited patient time required for survey completion and provider time for results review show mGA can be easily incorporated into clinical workflow. Real-time mGA results indicating fit/frailty status influenced treatment decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nitya Nathwani
- Judy and Bernard Briskin Center for Multiple Myeloma Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA
| | | | - Brea Lipe
- University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Mohile SG, Magnuson A, Pandya C, Velarde C, Duberstein P, Hurria A, Loh KP, Wells M, Plumb S, Gilmore N, Flannery M, Wittink M, Epstein R, Heckler CE, Janelsins M, Mustian K, Hopkins JO, Liu J, Peri S, Dale W. Community Oncologists' Decision-Making for Treatment of Older Patients With Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019. [PMID: 29523669 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.7047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Background: This study's objectives were to describe community oncologists' beliefs about and confidence with geriatric care and to determine whether geriatric-relevant information influences cancer treatment decisions. Methods: Community oncologists were recruited to participate in 2 multisite geriatric oncology trials. Participants shared their beliefs about and confidence in caring for older adults. They were also asked to make a first-line chemotherapy recommendation (combination vs single-agent vs no chemotherapy) for a hypothetical vignette of an older patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. Each oncologist received one randomly chosen vignette that varied on 3 variables: age (72/84 years), impaired function (yes/no), and cognitive impairment (yes/no). Other patient characteristics were held constant. Logistic regression models were used to identify associations between oncologist/vignette-patient characteristics and treatment decisions. Results: Oncologist response rate was 61% (n=305/498). Most oncologists agreed that "the care of older adults with cancer needs to be improved" (89%) and that "geriatrics training is essential" (72%). However, <25% were "very confident" in recognizing dementia or conducting a fall risk or functional assessment, and only 23% reported using the geriatric assessment in clinic. Each randomly varied patient characteristic was independently associated with the decision to treat: younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.01; 95% CI, 2.73-9.20), normal cognition (aOR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.01-9.76), and being functionally intact (aOR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.12-7.00). Accounting for all vignettes across all scenarios, 161 oncologists (52%) said they would offer chemotherapy. All variables were independently associated with prescribing single-agent over combination chemotherapy (older age: aOR, 3.22; 95% CI 1.43-7.25, impaired cognition: aOR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.36-7.20, impaired function: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.12-5.72). Oncologists' characteristics were not associated with decisions about providing chemotherapy. Conclusion: Geriatric-relevant information, when available, strongly influences community oncologists' treatment decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Supriya G Mohile
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Allison Magnuson
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Chintan Pandya
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Carla Velarde
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Paul Duberstein
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Arti Hurria
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Kah Poh Loh
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Megan Wells
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Sandy Plumb
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Nikesha Gilmore
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Marie Flannery
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Marsha Wittink
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Ronald Epstein
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Charles E Heckler
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Michelle Janelsins
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Karen Mustian
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Judith O Hopkins
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Jane Liu
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - Srihari Peri
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| | - William Dale
- From James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Decatur, Illinois; and Delaware/Christiana Care NCORP, Newark, Delaware
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology on prostate cancer management in older patients. Eur J Cancer 2019; 116:116-136. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2019] [Revised: 04/15/2019] [Accepted: 04/26/2019] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
33
|
Adjei A, Buckner JC, Cathcart-Rake E, Chen H, Cohen HJ, Dao D, De Luca JE, Feliciano J, Freedman RA, Goldberg RM, Hopkins J, Hubbard J, Jatoi A, Karuturi M, Kemeny M, Kimmick GG, Klepin HD, Krok-Schoen JL, Lafky JM, Le-Rademacher JG, Li D, Lichtman SM, Maggiore R, Mandelblatt J, Morrison VA, Muss HB, Ojelabi MO, Sedrak MS, Subbiah N, Sun V, Tuttle S, VanderWalde N, Wildes T, Wong ML, Woyach J. Arti Hurria, M.D.: A tribute to her shining legacy in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. J Geriatr Oncol 2019; 11:179-183. [PMID: 31201095 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2019] [Accepted: 05/14/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Araba Adjei
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Jan C Buckner
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | | | - Hongbin Chen
- Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, United States of America
| | - Harvey J Cohen
- Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - Dyda Dao
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Jo-Ellen De Luca
- Alliance for Clinical Trials Patient Advocate, United States of America
| | | | | | - Richard M Goldberg
- West Virginia University, Morgantown, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Judith Hopkins
- Novant Health, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America
| | | | - Aminah Jatoi
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
| | - Meghan Karuturi
- M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America
| | | | | | - Heidi D Klepin
- Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America
| | | | | | | | - Daneng Li
- City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States of America
| | - Stuart M Lichtman
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Ronald Maggiore
- University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America
| | | | - Vicki A Morrison
- University of Minnesota, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, United States of America
| | - Hyman B Muss
- University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | | | | | - Niveditha Subbiah
- Alliance for Clinical Trials, Protocol Operations Office, Chicago, IL, United States of America
| | - Virginia Sun
- City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States of America
| | - Susan Tuttle
- Southeast Clinical Oncology, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America
| | | | - Tanya Wildes
- Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Melisa L Wong
- University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| | - Jennifer Woyach
- The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Utilisation of geriatric assessment in oncology - a survey of Australian medical oncologists. J Geriatr Oncol 2019; 10:216-221. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2018.07.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2018] [Revised: 05/02/2018] [Accepted: 07/09/2018] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
|
35
|
Mohile SG, Dale W, Somerfield MR, Schonberg MA, Boyd CM, Burhenn PS, Canin B, Cohen HJ, Holmes HM, Hopkins JO, Janelsins MC, Khorana AA, Klepin HD, Lichtman SM, Mustian KM, Tew WP, Hurria A. Practical Assessment and Management of Vulnerabilities in Older Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: ASCO Guideline for Geriatric Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:2326-2347. [PMID: 29782209 PMCID: PMC6063790 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.78.8687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 888] [Impact Index Per Article: 148.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To provide guidance regarding the practical assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods An Expert Panel was convened to develop clinical practice guideline recommendations based on a systematic review of the medical literature. Results A total of 68 studies met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Recommendations In patients ≥ 65 years receiving chemotherapy, geriatric assessment (GA) should be used to identify vulnerabilities that are not routinely captured in oncology assessments. Evidence supports, at a minimum, assessment of function, comorbidity, falls, depression, cognition, and nutrition. The Panel recommends instrumental activities of daily living to assess for function, a thorough history or validated tool to assess comorbidity, a single question for falls, the Geriatric Depression Scale to screen for depression, the Mini-Cog or the Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration test to screen for cognitive impairment, and an assessment of unintentional weight loss to evaluate nutrition. Either the CARG (Cancer and Aging Research Group) or CRASH (Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients) tools are recommended to obtain estimates of chemotherapy toxicity risk; the Geriatric-8 or Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 can help to predict mortality. Clinicians should use a validated tool listed at ePrognosis to estimate noncancer-based life expectancy ≥ 4 years. GA results should be applied to develop an integrated and individualized plan that informs cancer management and to identify nononcologic problems amenable to intervention. Collaborating with caregivers is essential to implementing GA-guided interventions. The Panel suggests that clinicians take into account GA results when recommending chemotherapy and that the information be provided to patients and caregivers to guide treatment decision making. Clinicians should implement targeted, GA-guided interventions to manage nononcologic problems. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Supriya G Mohile
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - William Dale
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Mark R Somerfield
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Mara A Schonberg
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Cynthia M Boyd
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Peggy S Burhenn
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Beverly Canin
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Harvey Jay Cohen
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Holly M Holmes
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Judith O Hopkins
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Michelle C Janelsins
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Alok A Khorana
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Heidi D Klepin
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Stuart M Lichtman
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Karen M Mustian
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - William P Tew
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Arti Hurria
- Supriya G. Mohile, Michelle C. Janelsins, and Karen M. Mustian, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Beverly Canin, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston; Stuart M. Lichtman and William P. Tew, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; William Dale, Peggy S. Burhenn, and Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte, CA; Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Mara A. Schonberg, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brookline, MA; Cynthia M. Boyd, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Judith O. Hopkins, Novant Health Oncology Specialists; Heidi D. Klepin, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, NC; Holly M. Holmes, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX; and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Shahrokni A, Maggiore RJ, Ghassemzadeh H. New technologies in geriatric oncology care. J Geriatr Oncol 2018; 9:687-689. [PMID: 30037766 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2018.07.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2018] [Accepted: 07/13/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Armin Shahrokni
- Department of Medicine/Geriatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| | - Ronald J Maggiore
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
| | - Hassan Ghassemzadeh
- School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164, USA
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Menjak IB, Jerzak KJ, Desautels DN, Pritchard KI. An update on treatment for post-menopausal metastatic breast cancer in elderly patients. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2018; 19:597-609. [PMID: 29601247 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2018.1454431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Elderly patients make up a significant proportion of patients with metastatic breast cancer. With several options available in the metastatic setting for hormone positive breast cancer, these patients require an individualized approach to decision-making that considers multiple factors beyond performance status and chronologic age. AREAS COVERED The authors review the literature on endocrine monotherapy and combinations for hormone positive metastatic breast cancer, with specific commentary on the efficacy and toxicity for elderly patients. The authors describe the role of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and highlight the considerations for the use of bone modifying agents, and HER2-targeted therapy for hormone positive/HER2+ patients. EXPERT OPINION Evidence for elderly patients is largely based on subgroup analyses, which should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, elderly patients with metastatic hormone receptor positive breast cancer appear to derive similar benefit from treatments as younger patients. Similarly, for most drugs, these patients have no significant worsening of toxicity compared to younger patients. In addition to tumor biology, patient values and information from the CGA should be used to guide treatment decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ines B Menjak
- a Department of Medicine , Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre , Toronto , Canada
| | - Katarzyna J Jerzak
- a Department of Medicine , Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre , Toronto , Canada
| | - Danielle N Desautels
- b Department of Medical Oncology and Haematology , CancerCare Manitoba , Winnipeg , Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Significance of stereotactic body radiotherapy in older patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. J Geriatr Oncol 2018; 9:594-599. [PMID: 29573969 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2018.03.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2017] [Revised: 01/21/2018] [Accepted: 03/06/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Our aim was to investigate long-term treatment outcomes in older patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the presence or absence of therapeutic benefits, using the G8 screening tool. METHODS We retrospectively studied 43 older patients (median age 78 years, range 65-89 years) with stage I lung tumors (T1 and T2 tumors in 34 and 9 patients, respectively), who underwent stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). This study assessed outcomes in a cohort of patients who received geriatric assessments, performed between 2004 and 2011, before the start of their SBRT regimen. Any questions asked to patients before undergoing treatment were applied to the G8 screening tool. RESULTS G8 scores ranged from 8 to 16 (median, 12) in all patients (n = 43), while G8 scores in the T1 and T2 groups ranged from 9 to 16 (median, 13) and 8 to 15 (median, 12), respectively. In patients with G8 scores ≤12, the 2-year and 5-year survival rates were 56.1% and 28% respectively, while the rates were 94.1% and 68.4%, respectively, in patients with G8 scores ≥13 (P = 0.0014). During long-term follow-up, 25.9% of the patients (n = 43) died of the primary disease, NSCLC, and 34.9% of patients died of other diseases or other types of cancer. CONCLUSION SBRT may be effective, even in older adults. Regardless of age, SBRT improved the long-term survival of patients only with G8 scores ≥13. The G8 screening tool may aid in determining whether older patients with comorbidities would benefit from SBRT.
Collapse
|
39
|
Loh KP, McHugh C, Mohile SG, Mustian K, Flannery M, Klepin H, Schnall R, Culakova E, Ramsdale E. Using Information Technology in the Assessment and Monitoring of Geriatric Oncology Patients. Curr Oncol Rep 2018; 20:25. [PMID: 29511850 DOI: 10.1007/s11912-018-0672-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Older adults with cancer have complex medical needs and often experience higher rates of treatment-related toxicities compared to their younger counterparts. The advent of health information technologies can address multiple gaps in the care of this population. We review the role of existing and emerging technologies in facilitating the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in routine clinics, promoting symptom reporting, and monitoring medication adherence. RECENT FINDINGS Increasingly, studies demonstrate the feasibility of implementing electronic CGA in routine oncology practices. Evidence also suggests that electronic symptom reporting can improve outcomes in patients with cancer. In addition, technology devices can be used to promote adherence to cancer therapy. There are many opportunities for information technology to be integrated into the management and treatment of older adults with cancer. However, further evaluation of these technologies is needed to ensure that they meet the needs of the targeted end users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kah Poh Loh
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
| | - Colin McHugh
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA
| | - Supriya G Mohile
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA
| | - Karen Mustian
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA
| | - Marie Flannery
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA
| | - Heidi Klepin
- Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | | | - Eva Culakova
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA
| | - Erika Ramsdale
- James P Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
McCleary NJ, Hubbard J, Mahoney MR, Meyerhardt JA, Sargent D, Venook A, Grothey A. Challenges of conducting a prospective clinical trial for older patients: Lessons learned from NCCTG N0949 (alliance). J Geriatr Oncol 2018; 9:24-31. [PMID: 28917648 PMCID: PMC5757827 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2017] [Revised: 07/14/2017] [Accepted: 08/14/2017] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES While the risk of developing colorectal cancer increases with age, there are limited prospective data regarding best treatment in the older adult population. We launched a phase III trial to evaluate difference in treatment outcome for older adults (aged ≥70years) with advanced colorectal cancer. Here we review the challenges faced and reasons for poor accrual to N0949. MATERIALS AND METHODS We describe the conceptualization, development and limited results of N0949, a randomized phase III study of fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab with or without oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX7 or XELOX) as first line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Fluoropyrimidine was physician choice (e.g., 5-FU/LV or capecitabine). RESULTS Of the projected 380 patients, only 32 patients were enrolled between the study activation in January 2011 until its closure in September 2012. Reasons for poor accrual included eligibility criteria that were too stringent, discomfort with randomizing older patients to regimens of varying intensity without considering their physical fitness, and discomfort with the use of bevacizumab in the older patient population. Several efforts were mounted to design a rationale and age-appropriate study, consider toxicities and varying study practices, and be responsive to stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSIONS Challenges were experienced in conducting the first prospective phase III study evaluating progression-free survival of older adults with advanced colorectal cancer receiving palliative chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab with or without oxaliplatin in the USA. Future efforts to evaluate treatment outcomes in the older adult population should reflect on lessons learned in this large national effort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine J McCleary
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber/Partners Cancer Care, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Joleen Hubbard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Michelle R Mahoney
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Jeffrey A Meyerhardt
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber/Partners Cancer Care, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Daniel Sargent
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | - Alan Venook
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Axel Grothey
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
McCleary NJ, Benson AB, Dienstmann R. Personalizing Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II/III Colorectal Cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2017; 37:232-245. [PMID: 28561714 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_175660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
This review focuses on three areas of interest with respect to the treatment of stage II and III colon and rectal cancer, including (1) tailoring adjuvant therapy for the geriatric population, (2) the controversy as to the optimal adjuvant therapy strategy for patients with locoregional rectal cancer and for patients with colorectal resectable metastatic disease, and (3) discussion of the microenvironment, molecular profiling, and the future of adjuvant therapy. It has become evident that age is the strongest predictive factor for receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, duration of treatment, and risk of treatment-related toxicity. Although incorporating adjuvant chemotherapy for patients who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery would appear to be a reasonable strategy to improve survivorship as an extrapolation from stage III colon cancer adjuvant trials, attempts at defining the optimal rectal cancer population that would benefit from adjuvant therapy remain elusive. Similarly, the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients after resection of metastatic colorectal cancer has not been clearly defined because of very limited data to provide guidance. An understanding of the biologic hallmarks and drivers of metastatic spread as well as the micrometastatic environment is expected to translate into therapeutic strategies tailored to select patients. The identification of actionable targets in mesenchymal tumors is of major interest.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Jackson McCleary
- From the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Oncology Data Science Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain; Sage Bionetworks, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Al B Benson
- From the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Oncology Data Science Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain; Sage Bionetworks, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Rodrigo Dienstmann
- From the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Oncology Data Science Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain; Sage Bionetworks, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Acceptability of a Touch Screen Tablet Psychosocial Survey Administered to Radiation Therapy Patients in Japan. Int J Behav Med 2017; 23:485-91. [PMID: 26249725 DOI: 10.1007/s12529-015-9502-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies in western clinical settings suggest that touch screen computer surveys are an acceptable mode of collecting information about cancer patients' wellbeing PURPOSE We examined the acceptability of a touch screen tablet survey among cancer patients in Japan. METHODS Eligible patients (n = 262) attending a university hospital radiation therapy (RT) department were invited to complete a touch screen tablet survey about psychosocial communication and care. Survey consent and completion rates, the proportion and characteristics of patients who completed the touch screen survey unassisted, and patient-reported acceptability were assessed. RESULTS Of 158 consenting patients (consent rate 60 % [95 % CI 54, 66 %] of eligible patients), 152 completed the touch screen computer survey (completion rate 58 % [95 % CI 52, 64 %] of eligible patients). The survey was completed without assistance by 74 % (n = 113; 95 % CI 67, 81 %) of respondents. Older age was associated with higher odds of having assistance with survey completion (OR 1.09; 95 % CI 1.04, 1.14 %). Ninety-two percent of patients (95 % CI 86, 96 %) felt that the touch screen survey was easy to use and 95 % (95 % CI 90, 98 %) agreed or strongly agreed that they were comfortable answering the questions. Overall, 65 % (95 % CI 57, 73 %) of respondents would be willing to complete such a survey more than once while waiting for RT treatment. CONCLUSIONS Although patient self-reported acceptability of the touch screen survey was high, self-administered touch screen tablet surveys may not be entirely appropriate for older cancer patients or possibly for patients with lower educational attainment.
Collapse
|
43
|
Dotan E. Adjusting Our Current Practice to Better Care for the Older Patient With Cancer. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13:103-104. [PMID: 28972828 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2016.019687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
44
|
Rostoft S. Integration of Geriatric Assessment in the Care of Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies. Visc Med 2017; 33:275-280. [PMID: 29034256 PMCID: PMC5624252 DOI: 10.1159/000475452] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The majority of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies are older. Recently, it has become evident that elements from a geriatric assessment (GA) are powerful predictors of outcomes such as postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of stay, type of treatment received, and survival across several GI tumor types in older adults. A GA is a systematic evaluation of functional status, comorbidities, polypharmacy, cognition, nutritional status, emotional status, and social support. METHODS A PubMed search was performed in order to identify clinical studies investigating the association between GA and outcomes in patients with GI malignancies. RESULTS A total of 31 studies were included in this review. For colorectal cancer, the evidence linking GA variables and frailty to negative outcomes is substantial and consistent. The data regarding other GI malignancies is more limited, but generally shows the same findings. CONCLUSION Increasing data shows that elements from a GA and frailty are consistently associated with negative short- and long-term treatment outcomes in older patients with GI malignancies. Future studies should investigate the impact of geriatric interventions on outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siri Rostoft
- Department of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Hamaker ME, Wildes TM, Rostoft S. Time to Stop Saying Geriatric Assessment Is Too Time Consuming. J Clin Oncol 2017. [PMID: 28628364 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.72.8170] [Citation(s) in RCA: 98] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Marije E Hamaker
- Marije E. Hamaker, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Tanya M. Wildes, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; and Siri Rostoft, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Tanya M Wildes
- Marije E. Hamaker, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Tanya M. Wildes, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; and Siri Rostoft, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Siri Rostoft
- Marije E. Hamaker, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Tanya M. Wildes, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; and Siri Rostoft, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Büttner M, Zebralla V, Dietz A, Singer S. Quality of Life Measurements: Any Value for Clinical Practice? Curr Treat Options Oncol 2017; 18:30. [DOI: 10.1007/s11864-017-0470-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
|
47
|
Schuler M, Trautmann F, Radloff M, Hentschel L, Petzold T, Eberlein-Gonska M, Ehninger G, Schmitt J. Implementation and first results of a tablet-based assessment referring to patient-reported outcomes in an inpatient cancer care unit. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN 2017; 121:64-72. [PMID: 28372924 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.03.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2016] [Revised: 03/06/2017] [Accepted: 03/07/2017] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine cancer care is of key importance for individualized treatment, shared decision making and patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE To describe the implementation under routine conditions of an electronic self-administered PRO assessment and comparison of PROs before and after inpatient treatment in oncologic care. METHODS In a tablet-based survey PROs on symptom burden, global health status/ quality of life (QoL) and health utility were collected twice (at hospital admission and discharge) in an inpatient oncological setting over a 17-month period using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires. Data were linked to the hospital information system (HIS). Patient acceptability, recruitment rates, symptom burden, and clinically meaningful changes in PROs over time were analyzed. RESULTS From a total of 384 hospitalized patients invited to participate at admission 371 (96.6 %) participated. At discharge, 195 patients were approached for a follow-up assessment, and 192 patients (98.5 %) participated. Despite strong acceptance among patients, recruitment rates were decreasing over time. During the hospital stay clinically meaningful improvements were observed for health utility (33.3 %, n = 64) and global health status/QoL (43.2 %, n = 83). Patients reported a variety of symptoms at admission and discharge. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of PRO assessment in routine care and data integration into the HIS provides valuable information for the entire medical staff as symptom burden is present during the entire hospital stay. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Long-term maintenance of PRO assessment in a clinical setting as a prerequisite of value-based healthcare requires continuous involvement of the nursing team, which can only be achieved by allocating resources to this task.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Markus Schuler
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Clinic for Internal Medicine II, HELIOS Hospital Emil von Behring, Berlin, Germany
| | - Freya Trautmann
- Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), partner site Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Dresden, Germany.
| | - Mirko Radloff
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Leopold Hentschel
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; University CancerCenter, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Thomas Petzold
- Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Department of Quality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Maria Eberlein-Gonska
- Department of Quality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Gerhard Ehninger
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; University CancerCenter, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jochen Schmitt
- Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), partner site Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Dresden, Germany; University CancerCenter, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Hurria A, Jones L, Muss HB. Cancer Treatment as an Accelerated Aging Process: Assessment, Biomarkers, and Interventions. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2017; 35:e516-22. [PMID: 27249761 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_156160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
An accumulating body of evidence supports the hypothesis that cancer and/or cancer treatment is associated with accelerated aging. The majority of these data come from the pediatric literature; however, a smaller yet growing body of literature points toward similar findings in the geriatric population. This is a key survivorship issue the growing number of older adults with cancer face, along with the short- and long-term impact of cancer therapy on the aging process. This article will review clinical and biologic markers of aging in older adults with cancer, use cardiovascular disease as a model of accelerated aging, and discuss potential interventions to decrease the risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arti Hurria
- From the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Lee Jones
- From the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Hyman B Muss
- From the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Hurria A, Akiba C, Kim J, Mitani D, Loscalzo M, Katheria V, Koczywas M, Pal S, Chung V, Forman S, Nathwani N, Fakih M, Karanes C, Lim D, Popplewell L, Cohen H, Canin B, Cella D, Ferrell B, Goldstein L. Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of a Computer-Based Geriatric Assessment for Older Adults With Cancer. J Oncol Pract 2016; 12:e1025-e1034. [PMID: 27624950 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2016.013136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computer-based geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture ( SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. METHODS Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. RESULTS The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil ( P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was "just right," and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test-retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥ 0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. CONCLUSION Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arti Hurria
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Chie Akiba
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Jerome Kim
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Dale Mitani
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Matthew Loscalzo
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Vani Katheria
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Marianna Koczywas
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Sumanta Pal
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Vincent Chung
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Stephen Forman
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Nitya Nathwani
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Marwan Fakih
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Chatchada Karanes
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Dean Lim
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Leslie Popplewell
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Harvey Cohen
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Beverly Canin
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - David Cella
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Betty Ferrell
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Leanne Goldstein
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Cohen HJ, Smith D, Sun CL, Tew W, Mohile SG, Owusu C, Klepin HD, Gross CP, Lichtman SM, Gajra A, Filo J, Katheria V, Hurria A. Frailty as determined by a comprehensive geriatric assessment-derived deficit-accumulation index in older patients with cancer who receive chemotherapy. Cancer 2016; 122:3865-3872. [PMID: 27529755 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30269] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2016] [Revised: 07/26/2016] [Accepted: 07/28/2016] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Frailty has been suggested as a construct for oncologists to consider in treating older cancer patients. Therefore, the authors assessed the potential of creating a deficit-accumulation frailty index (DAFI) from a largely self-administered comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). METHODS Five hundred patients aged ≥65 years underwent a CGA before receiving chemotherapy. A DAFI was constructed, resulting in a 51-item scale, and cutoff values were examined for patients in the robust/nonfrail (cutoff value, 0.0 < 0.2), prefrail (cutoff value, 0.2 < 0.35), and frail (cutoff value, ≥ 0.35) groups. RESULTS Two hundred and fifty patients (50%) were nonfrail, 197 (39%) were prefrail, and 52 (11%) were frail. Older patients (aged ≥ 80 years) and those who had lower education, were living alone, and had higher stage disease were associated with prefrail/frail status. Prefrail/frail patients were more likely to have grade ≥3 toxicity but not to have a dose delay or reduction, and they were more likely to discontinue drug and be hospitalized. The association with grade ≥3 toxicity was attenuated by controlling for a toxicity risk calculator, but the other outcomes were not. CONCLUSIONS A deficit-accumulation frailty index can be constructed from a CGA in older patients with cancer and can indicate the frailty status of the population. The frailty status so determined is associated both with outcomes likely because of chemotherapy toxicity and with those likely because of age-related physiologic and functional deficits and thus can be useful in the overall assessment of the patient. Cancer 2016;122:3865-3872. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harvey Jay Cohen
- Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - David Smith
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane City, Queensland, Australia
| | - Can-Lan Sun
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California
| | - William Tew
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Supriya G Mohile
- Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Cynthia Owusu
- University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Heidi D Klepin
- Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
| | - Cary P Gross
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Stuart M Lichtman
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Ajeet Gajra
- Department of Medicine, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York.,Veterans Administration Medical Center, Syracuse, New York
| | - Julie Filo
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California
| | - Vani Katheria
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California
| | - Arti Hurria
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California
| | | |
Collapse
|