Geriatric assessment in the older adult with genitourinary cancer: A narrative review

Comparing Frailty Indices for Risk Stratification in Urologic Oncology: Which Index to Choose?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the predictive ability of the modified Frailty Index (mFI) and the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI-Rev) for perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing major urologic oncologic surgery, aiming to identify the optimal frailty screening tool for surgical risk stratification.

METHODS

NSQIP was queried to identify patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, partial or radical nephrectomy, or radical cystectomy between 2013 and 2017. We investigated the association of mFI and RAI-Rev with the following 30-day perioperative outcomes using multivariable logistic regression: major complications, Clavien grade ≥4 complications, non-home discharge, 30-day readmission, and all-cause mortality. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis compared the predictive performances of the 2 frailty instruments, with differences between the C-statistics assessed using DeLong's test.

RESULTS

Among 101,739 patients, 30-day major complication rates varied from 2.40% in prostatectomy to 26.86% in cystectomy, non-home discharge rates ranged from 1.92% to 13.54%, and mortality rates were between 0.16% and 1.43%. RAI-Rev showed higher discriminatory ability for mortality (C-statistic: 0.688-0.798) and non-home discharge (C-statistic: 0.638-0.734) compared to mFI (C-statistic: 0.594-0.677 and 0.593-0.639, respectively). Both frailty indices had similar discriminatory ability for major perioperative complications (C-statistic: 0.531-0.607). DeLong's test confirmed statistically significant differences in C-statistics between RAI-Rev and mFI for mortality (P <.001) and non-home discharge (P <.001) across all surgical cohorts.

CONCLUSION

RAI-Rev may have greater utility as a frailty prognostic tool than mFI among patients undergoing major urologic surgery. Prospective studies and clinical trials exploring frailty should consider these results during trial design.

Hospital Quality and Racial Differences in Outcomes After Genitourinary Cancer Surgery

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Prior work has demonstrated racial disparities in surgical outcomes for solid organ cancers. We sought to assess the relationship between hospital quality and racial disparities in achievement of textbook outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer.

METHODS

We used 100% national Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from 2017 to 2020 to assess textbook outcomes in Patients undergoing bladder (i.e., radical cystectomy), kidney (i.e., radical or partial nephrectomy), and prostate (i.e., radical prostatectomy) surgery for genitourinary malignancies. Our exposure was hospital-level quality, assessed by the predicted to expected ratio of achievement of textbook outcomes, agnostic to social and economic determinants of health. Our main outcome was achievement of textbook outcomes in White and Black patients. We defined the textbook outcome as the absence of in-hospital mortality, mortality within 30 days of surgery, readmission within 30 days of discharge, a postoperative complication, and prolonged length of stay. The secondary outcome was percentage of Black and White patients treated at the highest quality hospitals.

RESULTS

As hospital quality increased, disparities in the receipt of textbook outcome for White and Black patients narrowed. For every 0.1 increment increase in the predicted to expected ratio of hospital quality, Black-White disparities in the odds of achieving textbook outcomes decreased by 5.7% (interaction OR: 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.11 p = 0.026). Black patients were less likely to be treated at the highest quality hospitals compared to White patients (45.2% vs. 49.5% p = < 0.001%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to White patients, Black patients had lower odds of textbook outcomes after surgery for prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer. The racial differences in achieving textbook outcomes were narrowed as hospital quality increased. Black patients were less likely than White patients to be treated at the highest-quality hospitals. Our findings underscore the importance of improved access to high quality care among Black patients.

Teaching Hospitals and Textbook Outcomes After Major Urologic Cancer Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess textbook outcomes by hospital teaching status following major surgery for urologic cancers.

METHODS

We used 100% national Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from 2017-2020 to assess rates of textbook outcomes in patients undergoing bladder (ie, radical cystectomy), kidney (ie, radical or partial nephrectomy), and prostate (ie, radical prostatectomy) surgery for genitourinary malignancies. The extent of integration of learners into each hospital's workforce-defined as major, minor, and non teaching hospitals-was the primary exposure. A textbook outcome, measured at the patient level, was defined as the absence of in-hospital mortality and mortality within 30days of surgery, no readmission 30days following discharge, no postoperative complication, and no prolonged length of stay.

RESULTS

Textbook outcomes were achieved in 51% (8564/16,786) of patients after bladder cancer surgery, 70% (39,938/57,300) of patients after kidney cancer surgery, and 82% (50,408/61,385) of patients after prostate cancer surgery. After adjusting for patient- and hospital-level characteristics, teaching hospitals had higher rates of textbook outcomes in those undergoing bladder (50.7% vs 44.0%; P = .001), kidney (72.0% vs 69.7%; P = .02), and prostate (85.3% vs 81.0%; P <.001) surgery. This effect was attenuated, but not eliminated, by surgical volume in additional sensitivity analyses for bladder (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.00-1.42; P = .04) and prostate (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.00-1.32; P = .04) surgery. There were no significant differences in kidney cancer surgery outcomes after adjusting for hospital volume (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.14; P = .6).

CONCLUSION

Undergoing major cancer surgery at a teaching hospital was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving a textbook outcome. This effect was attenuated by volume but persisted for bladder and prostate surgery.

Exploring the Language Used to Describe Older Patients at Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences

Older adults with cancer often present with distinct complexities that complicate their care, yet the language used to discuss their management at multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) remains poorly understood. A mixed methods study was conducted at a tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada, where MCCs spanning five tumour sites were attended over six months. For presentations pertaining to a patient aged 75 or older, a standardized data collection form was used to record their demographic, cancer-related, and non-cancer-related information, as well as the presenter's specialty and training level. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were employed to explore MCC depictions of older patients (n = 75). Frailty status was explicitly mentioned in 20.0% of presentations, but discussions more frequently referenced comorbidity burden (50.7%), age (33.3%), and projected treatment tolerance (30.7%) as surrogate measures. None of the presentations included mentions of formal geriatric assessment (GA) or validated frailty tools; instead, presenters tended to feature select GA domains and subjective descriptions of appearance ("looks to be fit") or overall health ("relatively healthy"). In general, MCCs appeared to rely on age-focused language that may perpetuate ageism. Further work is needed to investigate how frailty and geriatric considerations can be objectively incorporated into discussions in geriatric oncology.

Claudins in genitourinary tract neoplasms: mechanisms, prognosis, and therapeutic prospects

Genitourinary (GU) cancers are among the most prevalent neoplasms in the world, with bladder cancers constituting 3% of global cancer diagnoses. However, several pathogenetic mechanisms remain controversial and unclear. Claudins, for example, have been shown to play a significant role in several cancers of the human body. Their role in GU cancers has not been extensively studied. Aberrant expression of claudins -1, -2, -3, -4, -7, and -11 has been expressed in urothelial cell carcinomas. In prostate cancers, altered levels of claudins -1, -2, -3, -4, and -5 have been reported. Furthermore, the levels of claudins -1, -2, -3, -4, -6, -7, -8, and -10 have been studied in renal cell carcinomas. Specifically, claudins -7 and -8 have proven especially useful in differentiating between chromophobe renal cell carcinomas and oncocytomas. Several of these claudins also correlate with clinicopathologic parameters and prognosis in GU cancers. Although mechanisms underpinning aberrant expression of claudins in GU cancers are unclear, epigenetic changes, tumor necrosis factor-ɑ, and the p63 protein have been implicated. Claudins also provide therapeutic value through tailored immunotherapy via molecular subtyping and providing therapeutic targets, which have shown positive outcomes in preclinical studies. In this review, we aim to summarize the literature describing aberrant expression of claudins in urothelial, prostatic, and renal cell carcinomas. Then, we describe the mechanisms underlying these changes and the therapeutic value of claudins. Understanding the scope of claudins in GU cancers paves the way for several diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic innovations.

Examining provider perceptions and practices for comprehensive geriatric assessment among cancer survivors: a qualitative study with an implementation science focus

Introduction: Cancer rates increase with age, and older cancer survivors have unique medical care needs, making assessment of health status and identification of appropriate supportive resources key to delivery of optimal cancer care. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) help determine an older person's functional capabilities as cancer care providers plan treatment and follow-up care. Despite its proven utility, research on implementation of CGA is lacking. Methods: Guided by a qualitative description approach and through interviews with primary care providers and oncologists, our goal was to better understand barriers and facilitators of CGA use and identify training and support needs for implementation. Participants were identified through Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network partner listservs and a national cancer and aging organization. Potential interviewees, contacted via email, were provided with a description of the study purpose. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview guide explored providers' knowledge and use of CGAs. For codebook development, three representative transcripts were independently reviewed and coded by four team members. The interpretive process involved reflecting, transcribing, coding, and searching for and identifying themes. Results: Providers shared that, while it would be ideal to administer CGAs with all new patients, they were not always able to do this. Instead, they used brief screening tools or portions of CGAs, or both. There was variability in how CGA domains were assessed; however, all considered CGAs useful and they communicated with patients about their benefits. Identified facilitators of implementation included having clinic champions, an interdisciplinary care team to assist with implementation and referrals for intervention, and institutional resources and buy-in. Barriers noted included limited staff capacity and competing demands on time, provider inexperience, and misaligned institutional priorities. Discussion: Findings can guide solutions for improving the broader and more systematic use of CGAs in the care of older cancer patients. Uptake of processes like CGA to better identify those at risk of poor outcomes and intervening early to modify treatments are critical to maximize the health of the growing population of older cancer survivors living through and beyond their disease.