General practitioner contacts, hospitalizations, and nursing home transfers in older patients up to three years after new cancer diagnosis: Results from a large data linkage cohort study

12041

Background: Long-term outcomes after cancer diagnosis in older persons are largely unexplored because of limited follow-up in clinical studies. By linking clinical data with population-based data, studying long-term outcomes in large cohorts becomes feasible. The current study aims to explore long-term outcomes in the care trajectory of older patients with cancer and to assess their association with baseline geriatric screening and assessment (GS/GA) results. Methods: A large cohort study of older patients with a new cancer diagnosis was set up by linking clinical, cancer registry and administrative health data based on a unique patient identifier. Clinical data were derived from a previously performed prospective multicentric Belgian study (2009-2015). Patients aged ≥ 70 years were screened with G8 followed by GA in case of an abnormal result (≤14/17). Tumor characteristics and vital status were derived from cancer registry data and long-term outcomes (general practitioner (GP) contacts, hospitalizations and nursing home transfers) from administrative health data. In patients that survived at least 3 months since inclusion, outcomes were assessed from the day after inclusion until 3 years after. Event rates were calculated using person-time at risk to allow for varying follow-up time. Patients were censored 3 months before death to exclude influence of end-of-life care. Results: After data linkage, 6,391 older patients with a new cancer diagnosis were available for this analysis. The median age was 77 (range: 70–100) and 59.8% was female. Diagnoses included solid (92.8%) and hematologic malignancies (7.2%). In the patients with a solid tumor, breast, colorectal and lung cancer were the most common and 20.1% of patients had stage IV. 64.3% of patients had an abnormal baseline G8 score. During the 3 year follow-up, 2,602 (40.7%) of the included patients died. In these 3 years, 5,985 (95.2%) patients had at least one contact with a GP and 4,634 (72.5%) had at least one new hospital admission (event rates in Table 1). Of the 3,724 patients living independently at inclusion and still alive after 3 years, 281 (7.5%) had been transferred to a nursing home and of those, 240 (85.4%) patients had an abnormal baseline G8 score. Conclusions: Older patients with an abnormal baseline G8 score have more GP contacts, hospital admissions and nursing home transfers in the 3 years following a new cancer diagnosis compared to patients with normal baseline G8 score. Baseline G8 could help identify patients at risk for higher long-term healthcare utilization.[Table: see text]

Unplanned hospitalizations in older patients with cancer: Occurrence and predictive factors

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the occurrence of unplanned hospitalizations in older patients with cancer and to determine predictive factors.

METHODS

A prospective Belgian multicentre (n = 22), observational cohort study was performed. Patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor were included. Patients underwent G8 screening followed by geriatric assessment (GA) if abnormal at baseline and were followed for unplanned hospitalizations at approximately three months. Uni- and multivariable regression models were performed to determine predictive factors associated with unplanned hospitalizations in older patients with an abnormal G8.

RESULTS

In total, 7763 patients were included in the current analysis of which 2409 (31%) patients with a normal G8 score and 5354 (69%) with an abnormal G8 score. Patients with an abnormal G8 were hospitalized more frequently than patients with a normal G8 (22.9% versus 12.4%; p < 0.0001). Reasons for unplanned hospitalizations were most frequently cancer related (25.7%) or cancer therapy related (28%). In multivariable analysis, predictive factors for unplanned hospitalizations in older patients with cancer and an abnormal G8 were female gender, absence of surgery, chemotherapy, ADL dependency, malnutrition and presence of comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Older patients with cancer and an abnormal G8 screening present a higher risk (23%) for unplanned hospitalizations. Predictive factors for these patients were identified and include not only patient and treatment related factors but also GA related factors.

Adherence to geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: a multicenter prospective cohort study in Belgium

Background

In the general older population, geriatric assessment (GA)-guided treatment plans can improve overall survival, quality of life and functional status (FS). In GA-related research in geriatric oncology, studies mainly focused on geriatric screening and GA but not on geriatric recommendations, interventions and follow-up. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken in older patients with cancer.

Patient and methods

A prospective Belgian multicenter (N = 22) cohort study included patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor upon oncologic treatment decision. Patients with an abnormal result on the geriatric screening (G8 ≤14/17) underwent GA. Geriatric recommendations were formulated based on GA results. At follow-up the adherence to geriatric recommendations was documented including a description of actions undertaken.

Results

From November 2012 till February 2015, G8 screening was carried out in 8451 patients, of which 5838 patients had an abnormal result. Geriatric recommendations data were available for 5631 patients. Geriatric recommendations were made for 4459 patients. Geriatric interventions data were available for 4167 patients. A total of 12 384 geriatric recommendations were made. At least one different geriatric recommendation was implemented in 2874 patients. A dietician, social worker and geriatrician intervened most frequently for problems detected on the nutritional, social and functional domain. A total of 7569 actions were undertaken for a total of 5725 geriatric interventions, most frequently nutritional support and supplements, extended home care and psychological support.

Conclusions

This large-scale Belgian study focuses on the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken and contributes to the optimal management of older patients with cancer. We identified the domains for which geriatric recommendations are most frequently made and adhered to, and which referrals to other health care workers and facilities are frequently applied in the multidisciplinary approach of older patients with cancer.

Determining clinically important differences in health-related quality of life in older patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or surgery

PURPOSE

Using the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, we aimed to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes for older cancer patients with a geriatric risk profile, as defined by the geriatric 8 (G8) health screening tool, undergoing treatment. Simultaneously, we assessed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes.

METHODS

Our analysis included 1424 (G8 ≤ 14) older patients with cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy (n = 683) or surgery (n = 741). Anchor-based methods, linking the GHS score to clinical indicators, were used to determine MCID between baseline and follow-up at 3 months. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) was used to exclude MCID estimates too small for interpretation. Logistic regressions analysed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes.

RESULTS

The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS15), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Fatigue and ECOG Performance Status (PS) were selected as clinical anchors. In the surgery group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (5*, 11*), GDS15 (5*, 2) and VAS Fatigue (3, 9*). In the chemotherapy group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (8*, 7*), GDS15 (5, 4) and VAS Fatigue (5, 5*). Estimates with * were > 0.2 SD threshold. Patients experiencing pain or malnutrition (surgery group) or fatigue (chemotherapy group) at baseline showed a significantly stable or improved HRQOL (p < 0.05) after their treatment.

CONCLUSION

The reported MCID for improvement and deterioration depended on the anchor used and treatment received. The estimates can be used to evaluate significant changes in HRQOL and to determine sample sizes in clinical trials.