A pilot study of the vulnerable elders survey-13 compared with the comprehensive geriatric assessment for identifying disability in older patients with prostate cancer who receive androgen ablation

BACKGROUND: Impairments in geriatric domains adversely affect health outcomes of the elderly. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a key component of the treatment approach for older cancer patients, but it is time consuming. In this pilot study, the authors evaluated the validity of a brief, functionally based screening tool, the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13), for identifying older patients with prostate cancer (PCa) with impairment in the oncology clinic setting. METHODS: Patients with PCa aged >or=70 years who actively were receiving androgen ablation treatment and who were followed within the clinics at the University of Chicago were eligible. Patients self-completed the VES-13 and CGA instruments and repeated the VES-13 1 month later. Physical performance and cognitive assessments were administered by a research assistant. RESULTS: Of 50 participating patients, 50% were identified as impaired by the VES-13 (score >or=3). Sixty percent of patients scored as impaired on >or=2 tests within the CGA, exhibiting deficits in multiple domains. The reliability of the VES-13 (Pearson correlation coefficient) was 0.92. The cut-off score of 3 on the VES-13 had 72.7% sensitivity and 85.7% specificity for CGA deficits and was highly predictive for identifying impairment (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.90). Patients who had mean VES-13 scores >or=3 performed significantly worse on evaluations of activities of daily living (P = .001), physical performance (P = .002), comorbidity (P = .004), and cognitive impairment (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Functional and cognitive impairments are highly prevalent among older patients with PCa who receive androgen ablation in oncology clinics. The current results indicated that the brief VES-13 performed nearly as well as a conventional CGA in detecting geriatric impairment in this population.     

Validation of the G8 screening tool in older patients with cancer considered for surgical treatment

BackgroundThe Geriatric 8 (G8) has proven to be one of the most sensitive frailty-screening tools for older patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment. In this study we validated whether the G8 is also suitable for identifying impairments in their comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in older patients with cancer undergoing surgery. Thereby, we investigated the differences in postoperative outcomes between the fit and frail patients classified by the G8.MethodsPatients ≥70 years with a surgery indication because of a (suspected) malignant disease were prospectively enrolled. In all patients, a CGA was performed. The G8 results were assessed in parallel. The diagnostic value of the G8 was determined by comparing the result with the CGA as a reference test. Deficits in CGA was defined as ≥ two impairments of the CGA. Postoperative complications were retrospectively obtained from the medical record and compared between the fit and frail patients.ResultsIn total, 143 patients were enrolled. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of the G8 were 82% (95% CI 70–91), 63% (95% CI 52–73), and 85% (95% CI 75–91). In the patients with an impaired G8, a significantly prolonged hospital stay, higher rate of delirium, and higher 1-year mortality rate were seen.ConclusionThe G8 is a simple and useful screening tool for identifying deficits in CGA in older patients with cancer requiring surgery. Second, we concluded that patients with an impaired G8 are more at risk for a complicated recovery from surgery.     

Practical considerations for colorectal cancer screening in older adults

Recent guidelines recommend that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening after age 75 be considered on an individualized basis, and discourage screening for people over 85 due to competing causes of mortality. Given the heterogeneity in the health of older individuals, and lack of data within current guidelines for personalized CRC screening approaches, there remains a need for a clearer framework to inform clinical decision-making. A revision of the current approach to CRC screening in older adults is even more compelling given the improvements in CRC treatment, post-treatment survival, and increasing life expectancy in the population. In this review, we aim to examine the personalization of CRC screening cessation based on specific factors influencing life and health expectancy such as comorbidity, frailty, and cognitive status. We will also review screening modalities and endoscopic technique for minimizing risk, the risks of screening unique to older adults, and CRC treatment outcomes in older patients, in order to provide important information to aid CRC screening decisions for this age group. This review article offers a unique approach to this topic from both the gastroenterologist and geriatrician perspective by reviewing the use of specific clinical assessment tools, and addressing technical aspects of screening colonoscopy and periprocedural management to mitigate screening-related complications.     

Implementing and validating a care protocol for older adults with cancer in resource limited settings with a newly developed screening tool

BackgroundCancer in the aging population presents manifold challenges. In the resource-limited settings of developing countries, concrete steps to optimize care for older adults with cancer are required.Materials and methodThis prospective, observational study was divided in two parts. In the first part, older adults (≥60 years) with a tissue diagnosis of cancer underwent a preliminary, detailed assessment of relevant geriatric domains. The patients were followed up at 4, 12 and 24 weeks, and their survival status was recorded. In the second part a newly developed screening tool, “SCreening of the Older PErson with Cancer”, Version1 (SCOPE-C) was validated on patients with similar characteristics.Results419 participants were enrolled in the study. The mean age of the participants was 66.6 ± 6.2 years, 75% had functional impairment, 35% had malnutrition, and 64% had more than one co-morbidity. The median survival time was 22 weeks from the index visit. Male gender, functional decline, cognitive impairment, malnutrition, and treatment modality were found to be independently associated with survival. Individual Scores on the SCOPE-C Version1 scale were correlated with survival status at 24 weeks, and a cutoff score of 64 had a 72.2% sensitivity and 77.3% specificity for better prognosis.ConclusionThe present study is a comprehensive attempt to assess older adults with cancer with limited resources in a busy health system. A preliminary assessment with a prognostic screening tool may streamline care in resource-limited settings and aid clinicians in making treatment decisions.     

Survivorship care for older adults with cancer: U13 conference report

Older adult cancer survivors currently account for almost 60% of all cancer survivors. The number of older cancer survivors will continue to increase as the population ages and as patients' live longer after a cancer diagnosis. As part of cancer center accreditation, the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer® (CoC) has placed great importance on survivorship care planning. While the CoC has set standards for general survivorship care, there is sparse evidence on how to best care for older adult cancer survivors. Concern exists among the medical community that survivorship care plans could increase paperwork without improving outcomes. Given the diverse and unique needs of older adult cancer survivors, the inter-professional team provides a structure and process for survivorship care built around the particular needs of older adults. The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG), in partnership with the NIA/NCI, held a U13 conference in May 2015 in part to discuss survivorship care for older adults with cancer. This report discusses four themes that emerged from one section of the conference: (1) survivorship care is a process that continually evolves to meet the needs of older adults; (2) older adult cancer survivors have unique needs and care plans should be tailored to meet these needs; (3) the inter-professional team is ideally suited to structure survivorship care of older adults; (4) patient advocacy must be encouraged throughout the cancer care continuum. As evidence based survivorship practices develop, the unique needs of older adults need to be given substantial attention.     

Prevalence of and factors associated with treatment modification at first cycle in older adults with advanced cancer receiving palliative treatment

IntroductionTreatment toxicities are common in older adults with cancer and consequently, treatment modifications are sometimes considered. We evaluated the prevalence and factors associated with treatment modifications at the first cycle in older patients receiving palliative systemic treatment.MethodsPatients (n = 369) from the GAP 70+ Trial (NCT02054741; PI: Mohile) usual care arm were included. Enrolled patients were aged 70+ with advanced cancer and ≥ 1 Geriatric Assessment (GA) domain impairment. Treatment modification was defined as any change from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines or published clinical trials. Baseline variables included: 1) sociodemographic factors; 2) clinical variables; 3) GA domains; and 4) physician beliefs about life expectancy. Bivariate analyses and multivariable cluster-weighted generalized estimating equation model were conducted to assess the association of baseline variables with cycle 1 treatment modifications.ResultsMean age was 77.2 years (range: 70–94); 62% had lung or gastrointestinal cancers, and 35% had treatment modifications at cycle 1. Increasing age by one year (odds ratio (OR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0–1.2), receipt of ≥second line of chemotherapy (OR 1.8, CI 1.1–3.0), functional impairment (OR 1.6, CI 1.1–2.3) and income ≤$50,000 (OR 1.7, CI 1.1–2.4) were independently associated with a higher likelihood of cycle 1 treatment modification.ConclusionTreatment modifications occurred in 35% of older adults with advanced cancer at cycle 1. Increasing age, receipt of ≥second line of chemotherapy, functional impairment, and lower income were independently associated with treatment modifications. These findings emphasize the need for evidence-based regimens in older adults with cancer and GA impairments.     

Performance of the Vulnerable Elders Survey 13 screening tool in identifying cancer treatment modification after geriatric assessment in pre-treatment patients: A retrospective analysis

Purpose

Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended for older adults?≥?70?years with cancer to guide treatment selection. Screening tools such as the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) and G6 have been used to identify patients at highest need of GA. Whether either tool predicts a change in oncologic treatment following GA is unclear.

Pragmatic study designs for older adults with cancer: Report from the U13 conference

Cancer is a disease occurring disproportionately in older adults. However, the evidence base regarding how best to care for these patients remains limited due to their underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials. Pragmatic clinical trials represent a promising approach for enhancing the evidence base in geriatric oncology by allowing investigators to enroll older, frailer patients onto cancer clinical trials. These trials are more accessible, less resource intensive, and place minimal additional burden on participating patients. Additionally, these trials can be designed to measure endpoints directly relevant to older adults, such as quality of life, functional independence and treatment tolerability which are often not addressed in standard clinical trials. Therefore, pragmatic clinical trials allow researchers to include patients for whom the treatment will ultimately be applied and to utilize meaningful endpoints. Examples of pragmatic studies include both large, simple trials and cluster randomized trials. These study designs allow investigators to conduct clinical trials within the context of everyday practice. Further, researchers can devise these studies to place minimal burden on the patient, the treating clinicians and the participating institutions. In order to be successful, pragmatic trials must efficiently utilize the electronic medical record for data capture while also maximizing patient recruitment, enrollment and retention. Additionally, by strategically utilizing pragmatic clinical trials to test therapies and interventions that have previously shown efficacy in younger, fitter patients, these trials represent a potential mechanism to improve the evidence base in geriatric oncology and enhance care for older adults with cancer.     

Identification and treatment of depressive disorders in older adults with cancer

The increasing number of older adults living with cancer will inevitably include vulnerable subgroups who experience a range of depressive symptoms throughout the care continuum. It is well established that depression can lead to decreased quality of life, poor treatment adherence, increased length of hospital stay and health service utilization, and in severe cases, suicide. Thus, clinicians working in oncology must be able to identify, conceptualize, and treat (or connect to services) the mental health concerns of their older patients. This brief review describes the unique etiologies, features, and treatments for depressive syndromes among older adults in the oncology setting, drawing on the literature and prevailing depression management guidelines from both psycho-oncology and geriatric depression research.     

Comorbidity in older adults with cancer

Comorbidity is an issue of growing importance due to changing demographics and the increasing number of adults over the age of 65 with cancer. The best approach to the clinical management and decision-making in older adults with comorbid conditions remains unclear. In May 2015, the Cancer and Aging Research Group, in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging, met to discuss the design and implementation of intervention studies in older adults with cancer. A presentation and discussion on comorbidity measurement, interventions, and future research was included. In this article, we discuss the relevance of comorbidities in cancer, examine the commonly used tools to measure comorbidity, and discuss the future direction of comorbidity research. Incorporating standardized comorbidity measurement, relaxing clinical trial eligibility criteria, and utilizing novel trial designs are critical to developing a larger and more generalizable evidence base to guide the management of these patients. Creating or adapting comorbidity management strategies for use in older adults with cancer is necessary to define optimal care for this growing population.     

A novel geriatric assessment tool that predicts postoperative complications in older adults with cancer

IntroductionComprehensive geriatric assessment prior to oncologic surgery can help predict surgical outcomes. We tested whether an abbreviated geriatric assessment tool, the Vulnerable Elderly Surgical Pathways and outcomes Assessment (VESPA), would predict post-operative complications among older adults undergoing oncologic surgery.MethodFrom 2008 to 2011, geriatric assessments were completed using the VESPA tool for patients age ≥ 70 seen in a pre-operative clinic. The VESPA assessed functional status, mood, cognition, and mobility, and can be completed in <10 min. We selected the subset of patients who underwent oncologic surgery and evaluated the VESPA's ability to predict post-operative surgical complications, geriatric complications (e.g., delirium), length of stay, and geriatric post-discharge needs (e.g., new functional dependence).ResultsA total of 476 patients who underwent oncologic surgery received the assessment using VESPA. Compared to patients with low VESPA scores (<9), patients with high VESPA scores (≥9) had longer length of stay (mean 6.6 vs. 2.0 days; p < .001), more geriatric complications (39.5% vs. 5.7%; p < .001), more surgical complications (29.5% vs. 11.8%; p < .001), and more likely to have post discharge needs (76.0% vs. 31.7%; p < .001). Using logistic regression, each additional point on the VESPA scale was also associated with increased probability of geriatric complications (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.2–1.4), surgical complications (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.1–1.2), and geriatric post-discharge needs (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.2–1.3).ConclusionThe VESPA identifies older patients with cancer who are at risk for postoperative surgical and geriatric complications as well as functional needs at hospital discharge.     

Mental status evaluation in older adults with cancer: Development of the Mental Health Index-13

Objectives

The Mental Health Index (MHI) is widely used as a measure of mental health status, but has not been evaluated in the geriatric oncology population. This study evaluated the MHI-17 in a geriatric oncology population, to establish validity and scoring rules.

Improving the quality of survivorship for older adults with cancer

In May 2015, the Cancer and Aging Research Group, in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging through a U13 grant, convened a conference to identify research priorities to help design and implement intervention studies to improve the quality of life and survivorship of older, frailer adults with cancer. Conference attendees included researchers with multidisciplinary expertise and advocates. It was concluded that future intervention trials for older adults with cancer should: 1) rigorously test interventions to prevent the decline of or improve health status, especially interventions focused on optimizing physical performance, nutritional status, and cognition while undergoing cancer treatment; 2) use standardized care plans based on geriatric assessment findings to guide targeted interventions; and 3) incorporate the principles of geriatrics into survivorship care plans. Also highlighted was the need to integrate the expertise of interdisciplinary team members into geriatric oncology research, improve funding mechanisms to support geriatric oncology research, and disseminate high‐impact results to the research and clinical community. In conjunction with the 2 prior U13 meetings, this conference provided the framework for future research to improve the evidence base for the clinical care of older adults with cancer. Cancer 2016;122:2459–68 . © 2016 American Cancer Society.