Basic Assessment of the Older Cancer Patient

Cancer is a disease of the elderly (median age 67 in the US), and this is a population with a variable health status. Therefore, treating the older half of the cancer population will present the challenge of not only addressing tumor diversity (the side often referred to in “personalized cancer care” discussions), but patient diversity as well as the interaction between these two heterogeneities. In that sense, geriatric oncology is the ultimate personalized cancer care. In this article, we will address the recent updates in the basic assessment of the patient’s condition, and their implication for clinical and research use. The main progresses reported in the last couple of years pertain to geriatric screening tests, and to prediction of the tolerance to treatment. Some important data on the impact of comorbidities on cancer behavior have emerged, but the clinical implications of these data are still being sorted out. We recommend a two-step approach to the basic evaluation of the older cancer patient. First a short screening with a tested screening instrument. Then further work-up of the geriatric findings in parallel with the oncology work-up to define an integrated treatment plan.     

Use of Single-Item Self-Rated Health Measure to Identify Frailty and Geriatric Assessment-Identified Impairments Among Older Adults with Cancer

BackgroundPoor self-rated health (SRH) is a known predictor of frailty and mortality in the general population; however, its role among older adults with cancer is unknown. We evaluated the role of SRH as a potential screening tool to identify frailty and geriatric assessment (GA)-identified impairments.Materials and MethodsAdults ≥60 years diagnosed with cancer in the UAB Cancer & Aging Resilience Evaluation (CARE) registry underwent a GA at the time of initial consultation. We measured SRH using a single-item from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System global health scale and dichotomized responses as poor (poor, fair) and good (good, very good, and excellent). We evaluated the diagnostic performance of SRH in measuring frailty, and GA impairment (≥2 deficits among a set of seven GA domains). We examined the impact of SRH with survival using a Cox model adjusting for confounders, exploring the mediating role of frailty.ResultsSix hundred and three older adults with cancer were included, with a median age of 69 years. Overall, 45% (n = 274) reported poor SRH. Poor SRH demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for identifying frailty (85% and 78%, respectively) and GA impairment (75% and 78%, respectively). In a Cox regression model, poor SRH was associated with inferior survival (HR = 2.26; 95% CI 1.60-3.18) after adjusting for confounders; frailty mediated 69% of this observed relationship.ConclusionSelf-rated health may be used as a screening tool to identify older adults with cancer with frailty and GA impairments. Poor SRH is associated with inferior survival, which is mediated by frailty.     

Oral Chemotherapy for the Older Patient with Cancer

Oral chemotherapy presents a number of theoretical advantages in older cancer patients, including convenience of administration and dosage flexibility. Of the oral fluorinated pyrimidines, capecitabine is the most promising, because it minimizes the exposure of normal tissue to the active drug and substantially reduces the risk of mucositis, that is particularly common and severe in the aged. Despite promising initial results, oral etoposide does not offer any special advantage over the intravenous formulation for older patients, while oral temozolomide may have a role in the palliation of malignant melanoma and primary and secondary brain tumors. Of the experimental agents, oral platinum (satraplatin) and oral taxane formulations appear to be the most promising for minimization of the toxicity of the corresponding intravenous drug. Of special interest are tumor-specific agents, including inhibitors of tyrosine phosphokinase (e.g. imatinib mesylate) and angiogenesis. In conclusion, oral chemotherapy of cancer appears to be a very promising option for older patients.     

Geriatric Assessment of Older Adults With Cancer During Unplanned Hospitalizations: An Opportunity in Disguise

Background.

Geriatric assessment (GA) is an important tool for management of older cancer patients; however, GA research has been performed primarily in the outpatient setting. The primary objective of this study was to determine feasibility of GA during an unplanned hospital stay. Secondary objectives were to describe deficits found with GA, to assess whether clinicians recognized and addressed deficits, and to determine 30-day readmission rates.

Materials and Methods.

The study was designed as an extension of an existing registry, “Carolina Senior: Registry for Older Patients.” Inclusion criteria were age 70 and older and biopsy-proven solid tumor, myeloma, or lymphoma. Patients had to complete the GA within 7 days of nonelective admission to University of North Carolina Hospital.

Results.

A total of 142 patients were approached, and 90 (63%) consented to participation. All sections of GA had at least an 83% completion rate. Overall, 53% of patients reported problems with physical function, 63% had deficits in instrumental activities of daily living, 34% reported falls, 12% reported depression, 31% had ≥10% weight loss, and 12% had abnormalities in cognition. Physician documentation of each deficit ranged from 20% to 46%. Rates of referrals to allied health professionals were not significantly different between patients with and without deficits. The 30-day readmission rate was 29%.

Conclusion.

GA was feasible in this population. Hospitalized older cancer patients have high levels of functional and psychosocial deficits; however, clinician recognition and management of deficits were poor. The use of GA instruments to guide referrals to appropriate services is a way to potentially improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Implications for Practice:

Geriatric assessment (GA) is an important tool in the management of older cancer patients; however, its primary clinical use has been in the outpatient setting. During an unplanned hospitalization, patients are extremely frail and are most likely to benefit from GA. This study demonstrates that hospitalized older adults with cancer have high levels of functional deficits on GA. These deficits are under-recognized and poorly managed by hospital-based clinicians in a tertiary care setting. Incorporation of GA measures during a hospital stay is a way to improve outcomes in this population.     

Geriatric Assessment and Frailty Scores Predict Mortality in Myeloma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The incidence of multiple myeloma is increasing as the proportion of older adults is growing rapidly. A critical evaluation of the evidence available is needed to guide the management of older patients with myeloma. A systematic review was conducted to report the prognostic value of geriatric assessment and frailty scores in older patients with multiple myeloma. We conducted a literature search in February and August 2018. Two researchers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies. Geriatric assessment and frailty scores were defined as those evaluating at least 2 geriatric domains. Main outcomes were mortality or toxicity. We estimated the pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We screened titles and abstracts of 1672 citations for eligibility. Seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, of which 3 were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies reported similar risks of hematologic adverse events in intermediate-fit and in frail patients compared to frail, but a significantly increased risk of nonhematologic adverse events in frail patients compared to fit patients. In meta-analysis, a significantly increased HR for death was observed in patients with activity of daily living score ≤ 4 (pooled HR = 1.576; 95% CI, 1.051-2.102; χ² = 0.87; P = .647; I² = 0). Patients classified as frail showed higher risk of death than fit patients (pooled HR = 2.169; 95% CI, 1.002-2.336; χ² = 3.02; P = .221; I² = 33.7%). GA and frailty score are effective in predicting mortality in older adults with myeloma.     

International Survey on Frailty Assessment in Patients with Cancer

BackgroundFrailty negatively affects the outcomes of patients with cancer, and its assessment might vary widely in the real world. The objective of this study was to explore awareness and use of frailty screening tools among the ONCOassist healthcare professionals (HCPs) users.Materials and MethodsWe sent 2 emails with a cross-sectional 15-item survey in a 3-week interval between April and May 2021. Differences in the awareness and use of tools according to respondents’ continents, country income, and job types were investigated.ResultsSeven hundred thirty-seven HCPs from 91 countries (81% physicians, 13% nurses, and 5% other HCPs) completed the survey. Three hundred and eighty-five (52%) reported assessing all or the majority of their patients; 518 (70%) at baseline and before starting a new treatment. Three hundred and four (43%) HCPs were aware of performance status (PS) scores only, 309 (42%) age/frailty/comorbidity (AFC) screening, and 102 (14%) chemotoxicity predictive tools. Five hundred and thirty-seven (73%) reported using tools; 423 (57%) just PS, 237 (32%) AFC, and 60 (8%) chemotoxicity ones. Reasons for tools non-use (485 responders) were awareness (70%), time constraints (28%), and uselessness (2%). There were significant differences in awareness and use of screening tools among different continents, country income, job types, and medical specialties (P < .001 for all comparisons).ConclusionAmong selected oncology HCPs, there is still a worldwide lack of knowledge and usage of frailty screening tools, which may differ according to their geography, country income, and education. Targeted initiatives to raise awareness and education are needed to implement frailty assessment in managing patients with cancer.     

General Care of the Older Cancer Patient

With increasing age, there are greater numbers of older people who will be diagnosed with cancer. It must be remembered that such individuals have increased frailty and have a number of geriatric syndromes and conditions particularly pertinent to older age, including incontinence, poor cognition and impaired nutrition. It is often difficult to define the effects of cancer and its treatment or complications, and separate these from the effects of normal ageing and geriatric syndromes. The documentation of poor nutrition and its management must combine knowledge from both geriatric medicine and oncology. Nutrition serves to identify key healthcare professionals who are all essential in any patient at risk or suffering from malnutrition. Incontinence must be actively sought, its cause identified and efforts made to either ‘cure’ it or, in certain circumstances, ‘manage’ it. Older patients with cancer are cared for predominantly by older relations and informal care mechanisms and special consideration of their physical and practical needs are paramount. In this area, nurses, doctors, therapists and social workers should work to identify formal and informal mechanisms to support particularly the older carer.     

Incorporating Geriatric Medicine Providers into the Care of the Older Adult with Cancer

A significant proportion of cancer patients and survivors are age 65 and over. Older adults with cancer often have more complex medical and social needs than their younger counterparts. Geriatric medicine providers (GMPs) such as geriatricians, geriatric-trained advanced practice providers, and geriatric certified registered nurses have expertise in caring for older adults, managing complex medical situations, and optimizing function and independence for this population. GMPs are not routinely incorporated into cancer care for older adults; however, their particular skill set may add benefit at many points along the cancer care continuum. In this article, we review the role of geriatric assessment in the care of older cancer patients, highlight specific case scenarios in which GMPs may offer additional understanding and insight in the care of older adults with cancer, and discuss specific mechanisms for incorporating GMPs into oncology care.     

Prospective Comparison of Geriatric Assessment and Provider’s Assessment of Older Adults With Metastatic Breast Cancer in the Community

BackgroundGeriatric assessment (GA) is recommended for evaluating fitness of an older adult with cancer. Our objective was to prospectively evaluate the gaps that exist in the assessment of older adults with metastatic breast cancer (OA-MBC) in community practices (CP).MethodsSelf-administered GA was compared to provider’s assessment (PA) of patients living with MBC aged ≥65 years treated in CP Providers were blinded to the GA results until PA was completed. McNemar’s test was used to detect differences between PA and GA.ResultsOne hundred patients were enrolled across 9 CP (median age 73.9). Geriatric assessment detected a total of 356 abnormalities in 96 patients; of which, 223 required interventions. African American and widowed/single patients were more likely to have abnormalities identified by GA. On average, across 100 patients, PA did not detect 25.5% of GA-detected abnormalities, mostly in functional status, social support, nutrition, and cognition. These differences were less pronounced among providers with more clinical experience. Patients with abnormal Timed Up and Go tests more likely had additional abnormalities in other domains, and more abnormalities that were not identified by PA. Providers were “surprised” by GA results in 33% of cases, mainly with cognitive or social support findings, and reported plans for management change for 39% of patients based on GA findings.ConclusionsIncluding a GA in the care of OA-MBC in CP is beneficial for the detection of multiple abnormalities not detected by routine PA.     

Palliative Care of Cancer in the Older Patient

The scope of palliative care includes goal setting, symptom management, and care of the care giver. Palliative care is essential for patient-centered care of the older cancer patients. The diversity of this population in terms of life expectancy, treatment tolerance, function, disability, and social support mandates personalized treatment plans. The assessment of physiologic age is currently based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). A number of biologic markers of aging including the inflammatory index, the genomic clock, the expression of p16INKa4, and the circulating levels of vitamin D may complement the CGA and fine-tune the determination of physiologic age. Goal setting in older patients may be complicated by communication difficulties related to hearing, cognition, expectation, and culture. Cancer-related pain is a major hindrance to the maintenance of functional independence and fatigue is harbinger of disability and death. The article explores the assessment and the management of the most common and debilitating symptoms in older cancer patients.     

Anticancer Drug Therapy in the Older Cancer Patient: Pharmacology and Polypharmacy

OPINION STATEMENT: Older patients currently are the largest group of oncology patients and their numbers will continue to expand. There has been minimal participation of older patients in clinical trials. This has resulted in a lack of data to make high-level evidence-based decisions with regard to chemotherapy. There has now been a number of clinical trials which have given information with regard to age-related changes and the spectrum of toxicity that occurs with older patients. There is also an expanding literature on organ dysfunction. The overall data seem to indicate that there are a very few age-related changes in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy. The small changes that are present have not been clinically significant. It seems that the pattern of toxicity is more reflective of patient selection (functional status, performance status), comorbidity, and drug scheduling. The large number of drugs with significant renal excretion requires careful evaluation of renal function. Future clinical trial design needs to be adapted to older patients. Therefore, drugs, which will be primarily used by older patients, should be studied in older patients. These studies should involve pharmacokinetics, and oral therapies should include measurements of compliance. Phase II trials of new agents should consider prospectively dividing groups of patients by age (i.e., <75 years vs. >or=75 years). Phase I trials should consider accruing older patients. The studies can be performed in the older group by using progressive degrees of functional impairment and increasing comorbidity as a surrogate for dose limiting toxicity. Functional independence as a clinical benefit of cancer treatment in older individuals should be considered as an endpoint. Overall survival may not be an appropriate endpoint in clinical trials in the oldest group. Clinical trials should consider studying long-term functional and medical consequences of cancer treatment in long-term older cancer survivors. Journal editors should encourage the inclusion of age-related analyses in the reporting of clinical trials to provide meaningful information for clinicians caring for older patients. Ideally, the clinical trial design should prospectively incorporate age analysis to maximize clinical benefit of data generated. A careful assessment of medication used in older patients needs to be part of routine evaluation to minimize the adverse effects of polypharmacy.     

Use of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Geriatric Screening for Older Adults in the Radiation Oncology Setting: A Systematic Review

Aims

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidisciplinary diagnostic process that evaluates medical, psychological, social and functional capacity. No systematic review of the use of CGA in radiation oncology has been conducted. This paper reviews the use of CGA in radiation oncology, examines whether such assessments are feasible and evaluates the effectiveness of these assessments in predicting and modifying outcomes.

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Adjustment of Cancer Treatment

A comprehensive geriatric assessment predicts classical oncologic outcome; however, evidence of comprehensive geriatric assessment-tailored treatment is still missing. Research is needed to drive evidence-based change in oncologic treatment and recognition of the potential value of geriatricians on an oncology team.McCleary and colleagues reported on the feasibility of computer-based cancer-specific geriatric assessment (CSGA). It is very positive and promising that the proportion of elderly patients completing CSGA at baseline and follow-up increased to 97%. The authors stated that although CSGA added information to clinical assessment, it did not currently affect clinical decision making [1].Does a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), either computer based or with paper and pencil, lead to adjustments in cancer treatment? The clinical question asked is whether oncologists know how to adjust cancer treatment based on the results of a CGA. The answer is, not yet. There is a lack of data on adjustments of cancer treatment based on CGA.Why are these data lacking despite a decade of research in geriatric oncology? CGA has been introduced in geriatric oncology to predict the outcome of elderly patients and has not yet been evaluated to adjust cancer treatment. Furthermore, outcome of cancer treatment has classically been evaluated using toxicity, progression-free survival, and mortality, not including CGA-related outcome. The impact of cancer treatment on functional and cognitive status has not yet been defined in large cohorts of elderly patients, whereas classical oncologic outcome parameters are assessed prior to and after cancer treatment. Consequently, we emphasize the importance of incorporating CGA outcome parameters (e.g., functional and cognitive parameters) alongside classical oncologic outcome during follow-up. These CGA outcome parameters should be easily measured (i.e., computer-based) and objective.CGA predicts classical oncologic outcome [2, 3]; however, evidence of CGA-tailored treatment is still missing. Research should focus on phenotyping elderly cancer patients and follow-up during and after treatment in order to define possible causal relationships. When a causal relationship between a typical geriatric parameter—one that would have been unnoticed without a CGA—and oncologic outcome is established, interventions can be targeted. In future studies, treatment regimens of full-dose systemic therapy and adjusted schedules should be compared. Ultimately, this should lead to an evidence-based change in oncologic treatment and recognition of the potential value of geriatricians on an oncology team.     

Management of Localized Esophageal Cancer in the Older Patient

Most patients with gastroesophageal cancers are older than 65 years of age. The management of older patients poses challenges because they have multiple comorbidities and physiological changes associated with aging. Furthermore, data are limited on tolerance of cancer therapy and the use of combined‐modality treatments in this patient population to guide their treatment. In this article, we focus on the management of older patients with localized esophageal cancer, highlighting the role of comprehensive geriatric assessment to identify and better tailor treatment approaches in this patient population. We review the literature and discuss the role of surgical resection and potential complications specific to an older patient. We review the rationale of combined‐modality treatment and the potential benefits of a chemoradiotherapy‐based approach in this patient population.     

Chemotherapy Toxicity in Older Adults Optimized by Geriatric Assessment and Intervention: A Non-Comparative Analysis

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is recommended to guide treatment choices in older patients with cancer. Patients ≥ 70 years referred to our oncology service with a new cancer diagnosis are screened using the G-8. Patients with a score of ≤14 are eligible to attend the Geriatric Oncology and Liaison (GOAL) Clinic in our institution, with referral based on physician discretion. Referred patients undergo multidimensional assessments at baseline. CGA domains assessed include mobility, nutritional, cognitive, and psychological status. Chemotherapy toxicity risk is estimated using the Cancer Aging and Research Group (CARG) calculator. We undertook a retrospective analysis of patients attending the GOAL clinic over a 30-month period to April 2021. The objective was to determine rates of treatment dose modifications, delays, discontinuation, and unscheduled hospitalizations as surrogates for cytotoxic therapy toxicity in these patients. These data were collected retrospectively. Ninety-four patients received chemotherapy; the median age was 76 (70–87) and 45 were female (48%). Seventy-five (80%) had an ECOG PS of 0–1. Seventy-two (77%) had gastrointestinal cancer, and most had stage III (47%) or IV (40%) disease. Chemotherapy with curative intent was received by 51% (n = 48) and 51% received monotherapy. From the CGA, the median Timed Up and Go was 11 s (7.79–31.6), and 90% reported no falls in the prior 6 months. The median BMI was 26.93 (15.43–39.25), with 70% at risk or frankly malnourished by the Mini Nutritional Assessment. Twenty-seven (29%) patients had impaired cognitive function. Forty-three (46%) had a high risk of toxicity based on the baseline CARG toxicity calculator. Twenty-six (28%) required dose reduction, 55% (n = 52) required a dose delay, and 36% (n = 34) had a hospitalization due to toxicity. Thirty-nine patients (42%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Despite intensive assessment, clinical optimization and personalized treatment decisions, older adults with cancer remain at high risk of chemotherapy toxicity.