Improving Cancer Treatment Communication between Secondary and Primary Care: A New Format for Written Communication.

In decision making for cancer treatment, information is crucial for patients and health care professionals. Although conversations about treatment decisions take place in hospitals, many patients also appreciate the insights of their general practitioner (GP). GPs indicated that, in order to have meaningful conversations about treatment decisions with their patients, they need additional information about treatment options and considerations, such as expected benefits and side effects. In this practice innovation, we developed and implemented a new written communication format from medical specialists to GPs, aimed at providing accurate treatment information to facilitate GPs in supporting patients with cancer in decision-making. The new format added 3 specific headings to standard letters in the electronic patient files (EPFs): (1) treatment options, (2) treatment considerations, and (3) treatment intent. This innovation was implemented in a large university hospital in the Netherlands between 2020 and 2021. We performed a process evaluation of the implementation using the RE-AIM model, based on assessment of written communication obtained from patients' EPFs, and telephonic interviews with specialists and GPs. In the Netherlands, all inhabitants are registered with a GP, who acts as a gatekeeper to specialist care, and has a comprehensive overview of a patient's history, based on digital communication with hospitals after referral for specialist care. EPFs are used to generate digital letters to communicate between medical specialists in a hospital and GPs outside the hospital. Incorporating new headings in the communication format in the EPF successfully encouraged medical specialists to share such information when used appropriately. Treatment options, considerations, and treatment intent were stated more often in the new format compared with the old format. GPs appreciated the new format, highlighting the value of including treatment considerations, which enhanced their comprehension of the medical specialist's thought processes. Recognition of the problem and motivation for improvement facilitated the implementation. Specialists stated the format to be time-efficient compared with the old format; however, technical improvements could make it easier to use. Automaticity to use of the old format, inadequate information, and technical issues were a barrier for implementation. In summary, a straightforward innovation can improve communication between medical specialists and GPs and promote the role of the GPs in decision making for cancer treatment.

Selecting the right treatment: Health outcome priorities in older patients with bladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Selecting the appropriate treatment for older patients with non-muscle invasive (NMIBC) or muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is challenging due to smoking-related comorbidities, treatment toxicity, and an increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Considering patient preferences prior to treatment is therefore crucial. Here, we aimed to identify the health outcome priorities of older patients with high-risk NMIBC (HR-NMIBC) or MIBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged 70 years or older or at risk for frailty, diagnosed with HR-NMIBC or MIBC without distant metastases, were referred for a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). The CGA consisted of an interview, physical examination, and several tests to examine physical, cognitive, functional, and social status. Quality of life was assessed using EQ5D and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires. Health outcome priorities were discussed using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) and associations between health outcome priorities and CGA-determinants and quality of life were studied. RESULTS: Of 146 patients (14 HR-NMIBC, 132 MIBC), OPT data was available for 139. Life extension was most often prioritized (44%), closely followed by preserving independence (40%). Reducing pain (7%) and other symptoms (9%) were less often prioritized. Patients prioritizing life extension had fewer musculoskeletal problems than patients prioritizing reducing pain or other symptoms (p = 0.02). Patients at risk of or suffering from malnutrition more frequently selected reducing pain or other symptoms as their health outcome priority (p = 0.004). For all other CGA-determinants and quality of life, there were no significant differences between groups based on health outcome priorities. DISCUSSION: In older patients with HR-NMIBC and MIBC, life extension and preserving independence are the most common health outcomes priorities. CGA-determinants and quality of life are generally not associated with the prioritization of health outcomes. As health outcome priorities cannot be predicted by CGA-determinants or quality of life, it is crucial to discuss health outcome priorities with patients to promote shared decision-making.

Head and neck cancer patients with geriatric deficits are more often non-responders and lost from follow-up in quality of life studies.

OBJECTIVES: To identify associations between frailty and non-response to follow-up questionnaires, in a longitudinal head and neck cancer (HNC) study with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred with HNC were included in OncoLifeS, a prospective data-biobank, underwent Geriatric Assessment (GA) and frailty screening ahead of treatment, and were followed up at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Head and Neck 35. Statistical analysis for factors associated with non-response was done using Generalized Linear Mixed Models. RESULTS: 289 patients were eligible for analysis. Mean age was 68.4 years and 68.5% were male. Restrictions in Activities of Daily Living [OR 4.46 (2.04-9.78)] and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living [OR 4.33 (2.27-8.24)], impaired mobility on Timed Up and Go test [OR 3.95 (1.85-8.45)], cognitive decline [OR 4.85 (2.28-10.35)] and assisted living (OR 5.54 (2.63-11.67)] were significantly associated with non-response. Frailty screening, with Geriatric 8 and Groningen Frailty Indicator, was also associated with non-response [OR, respectively, 2.64 (1.51-4.59) and 2.52 (1.44-4.44)]. All findings remained significant when adjusted for other factors that were significantly associated with non-response, such as higher age, longer study duration and subsequent death. CONCLUSION: Frail HNC patients respond significantly worse to follow-up PROMs. The drop-out and underrepresentation of frail patients in studies may lead to attrition bias, and as a result underestimating the effect sizes of associations. This is of importance when handling and interpreting such data.

Is a preoperative multidisciplinary team meeting (cost)effective to improve outcome for high-risk adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: the PREPARATION study-a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: As a result of increased life expectancy and improved care for patients suffering from chronic disease, the number of patients with multimorbidity requiring surgical intervention is increasing. For complex surgical patients, it is essential to balance the potential benefits of surgical treatment against the risk of permanent loss of functional capacity and quality of life due to complications. European and US guidelines on perioperative care recommend preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions for high-risk noncardiac surgical patients. However, the evidence underlying benefits from preoperative MDT meetings with all relevant perioperative specialties present is limited. The current study aims to investigate the effect of implementation of preoperative MDT discussions for high-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery on serious adverse events. METHODS/DESIGN: PREPARATION is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 14 Dutch hospitals without currently established preoperative MDT meeting. The intervention, preoperative MDT meetings, will be implemented sequentially with seven blocks of 2 hospitals switching from control (preoperative screening as usual) to the intervention every 3 months. Each hospital will be randomized to one of seven blocks. We aim to include 1200 patients. The primary outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include (cost)effectiveness, functional outcome, and quality of life for up to 12 months. DISCUSSION: PREPARATION is the first study to assess the effectiveness of a preoperative MDT meeting for high-risk noncardiac surgical patients in the presence of an anesthesiologist. If the results suggest that preoperative MDT discussions for high-risk patients are (cost)-effective, the current study facilitates implementation of preoperative MDT meetings in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05703230. Registered on 11/09/2022.

Supporting older patients in making healthcare decisions: The effectiveness of decision aids; A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of Decision Aids (DAs) compared to usual care or alternative interventions for older patients facing treatment, screening, or care decisions. METHODS: A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies included patients ≥ 65 years or reported a mean of ≥ 70 years. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice made and decision making process, user experience and ways in which DAs were tailored to older patients. Meta-analysis was conducted, if possible, or outcomes were synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, 15 studies were included. Using DAs were effective in increasing knowledge (SMD 0.90; 95% CI [0.48, 1.32]), decreasing decisional conflict (SMD -0.15; 95% CI [-0.29, -0.01]), improving patient-provider communication (RR 1.67; 95% CI [1.21, 2.29]), and preparing patients to make an individualized decision (MD 35.7%; 95% CI [26.8, 44.6]). Nine studies provided details on how the DA was tailored to older patients. CONCLUSION: This review shows a number of favourable results for the effectiveness of DAs in decision making with older patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Current DAs can be used to support shared decision making with older patients when faced with treatment, screening or care decisions.

Goals of older hospitalized patients with multimorbidity.

PURPOSE: Patient-centered healthcare, with aligning treatment to a patients' goal, is recognized by experts as essential to improve healthcare for older patients with multimorbidity. Little literature exists on goals of these specific patients. Therefore, we aimed to explore goals of older hospitalized patients with multimorbidity and compare their goals to those of older hospitalized patients without multimorbidity. METHODS: Older hospitalized patients (aged ≥ 70 years) were included in a prospective mixed-methods cohort study at the University Medical Centre Groningen, the Netherlands. Goals were assessed by a standardized interview, whereafter they were categorized and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-three older hospitalized patients (median age 75 (IQR 72-80), 64% male) were included, of which 223 patients presented with multimorbidity (45%). Goals mentioned most often were 'controlling disease' and 'alleviating complaints'. No differences were found in goals mentioned by patients with and without multimorbidity. Forty-one percent of both patients with and without multimorbidity mentioned goals that were disease-unrelated. CONCLUSION: No major differences were found in goals of older hospitalized patients with and without multimorbidity. However, the large proportion of patients mentioning disease-unrelated goals emphasizes the importance of goal elicitation by healthcare professionals within hospital care to provide optimally integrated care.

Influence of Frailty and Life Expectancy on Guideline Adherence and Outcomes in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Prospective Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common malignancy of the skin, often occurring in older patients and in the head and neck area (cSCCHN). Age, life expectancy, and frailty are not taken into consideration by current guidelines. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of frailty and life expectancy on guideline deviation, treatment outcomes, and quality of life (QoL) after treatment in patients with cSCCHN. METHODS: Patients with cSCCHN were prospectively included. A geriatric assessment was performed, including the Geriatric 8 (G8), Groningen Frailty Indicator, and Timed Up and Go test (TUG). The Lee index was used to predict a limited life expectancy, and the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 was used as a comorbidity index. QoL was assessed by the Basal and Squamous cell carcinoma Quality of Life (BaSQoL) questionnaire at three time points. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients with cSCCHN were included. Frail patients had significantly more high-risk tumours. Guideline deviation occurred in 7.8% and was more common in patients who were frail (G8), with high-risk tumours (≥T2), with a limited life expectancy or an increased TUG. Guideline deviation did not lead more often to progression of disease in our study. No predictors for post-operative complications were found. BaSQoL subscores were very low at each time point and did not change significantly with time in the total group. Frail patients reported more fear of recurrence or new tumours 3 months after treatment, and less concern about other people's skin 6 months after treatment, compared to non-frail patients. Complication rate, gender, or guideline deviation did not affect any subscale scores. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of frailty and life expectancy can guide physicians and patients in treatment decisions. Deviation from guidelines towards less aggressive treatment schedules can be considered in frail patients with a limited life expectancy, since it did not negatively affect short-term outcomes or QoL in patients with cSCCHN in our study. However, these results should be confirmed by other, larger prospective studies with a longer follow-up period.

The association of frailty and outcomes of geriatric assessment with acute radiation-induced toxicity in patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Geriatric impairments and frailty are highly prevalent in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). This study investigated the association of frailty and outcomes of geriatric assessment (GA) with radiation-induced toxicity (RIT) in patients undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy ((C)RT) for HNC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between October 2014 and April 2016, patients with HNC were prospectively included in OncoLifeS, an institutional data-biobank. Before treatment initiation, patients underwent GA and frailty screening (Groningen Frailty Indicator and Geriatric 8). The main outcome of this study was RIT (weight loss, mucositis, salivary gland inflammation, oral pain, sore throat, hoarseness, dry mouth, dysgeusia, dysphagia and general pain) according to the common terminology criteria of adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Linear mixed models were performed, to analyse factors associated with increasing mean RIT over time during the treatment period. RESULTS: 160 patients were included. 114 (71.3%) were male and the mean age was 66.1 years. Age ≥ 65 (ß = 0.03(95 %CI = 0.01;0.05), p = 0.01), regional RT (ß = 0.05(95 %CI = 0.02;0.09), p = 0.004), and concurrent chemotherapy (ß = 0.04(95 %CI = 0.02;0.07), p = 0.001), were independent factors associated with increasing toxicity during the 7-week treatment period, adjusted for relevant covariates. None of the single items of GA, as well as the frailty screening instruments, were associated with increasing RIT. CONCLUSION: In this study, frailty and GA were not associated with additional RIT during treatment. These results suggest that (C)RT is equally tolerated in frail and non-frail patients, with respect to acute RIT. RT could be a suitable alternative to surgery in selected frail patients.

The effect of delayed primary treatment initiation on adverse events and recurrence in older head and neck cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As a result of rapid tumor growth in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), delay in treatment initiation can result in tumor progression and inferior outcome. Especially older and frail patients are prone to develop adverse events. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of delay on development of adverse events and recurrence in older HNSCC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cohort study with prospectively collected data included all newly diagnosed, curatively treated HNSCC patients (≥60 years) between 2015 and 2017. Time-to-treatment interval and geriatric domains were assessed. Adverse events were defined as postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) and acute radiation-induced toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events). Multivariable regression models were performed, using adverse events and recurrence as outcome variables. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients were included. Median time-to-treatment was 26 days for surgery patients and 40 days for radiotherapy patients (p < 0.001). Delayed treatment initiation was not associated with postoperative complications or acute radiation-induced toxicity. Delay was significantly associated with recurrence risk within two years after treatment initiation in a model adjusted for stage and tumor location in patients treated with initial surgery (HR:4.1, 95%CI:1.2-14.0, p = 0.024). For patients treated with radiotherapy, delay was not significantly associated with recurrence risk. CONCLUSION: Delayed treatment initiation was independently associated with increased recurrence risk in patients treated with initial surgery. Delay was not associated with short-term adverse events. These findings highlight the importance of establishing fast-track care pathways to minimize delays and improve especially long-term outcome.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review.

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

Impact of Delay on Hospitalization in Older Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of delay in treatment initiation on hospitalization, overall survival, and recurrence in older patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter study. SETTING: Two tertiary referral centers. METHODS: All patients with newly diagnosed HNC (≥60 years) treated between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Time-to-treatment intervals were assessed (ie, calendar days between first visit and start of treatment). Multiple multivariable models were performed with hospital admission days (>14 days), survival, and recurrence as dependent outcome variables. RESULTS: In total, 525 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 70.7 years and 70.7% were male. Median time to treatment was 34.0 days, and 36.3% started treatment within 30 days (P = .576 between centers). Patients with radiotherapy had longer time to treatment than surgical patients (39.0 vs 29.0 days, P < .001). Current smoking status, stage IV tumors, and definitive radiotherapy were significantly associated with delay in the multivariable analysis. Time-to-treatment interval ≥30 days was a significant predictor of longer hospital admission (>14 days) in the first year after treatment in an adjusted model (odds ratio, 4.66 [95% CI, 2.59-8.37]; P < .001). Delay in treatment initiation was not associated with overall survival or tumor recurrence. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance and challenges of ensuring timely treatment initiation in older patients with HNC, as treatment delay was an independent predictor of hospitalization. During oncologic workup, taking time to consider patient-centered outcomes (including minimizing time spent in hospital) while ensuring timely start of treatment requires well-structured, fast-track care pathways.

Goals and outcomes of hospitalised older people: does the current hospital care match the needs of older people?

BACKGROUND: Due to the rising number of acutely hospitalised older people in the coming years, there is increased interest in tailoring care to the individual goals and preferences of patients in order to reach patient-centred care. AIMS: To investigate the goals of older hospitalised patients and the extent to which these goals were reached during hospitalisation. METHODS: A single-centre prospective cohort study was performed in The Netherlands between December 2017 and January 2018. Participants aged 70 years or older were included. In the first 3 days of hospitalisation, a semi-structured interview was conducted to assess the patient goals regarding the hospital admission. At 1-2 weeks after discharge, patients were asked to what extent the recent hospitalisation had contributed to reaching their goals. RESULTS: One hundred and four patients were included and follow up was completed for 86 patients. The main goals reported at hospital admission were 'remaining alive' (72.1%), 'feeling better' (71.2%) and 'improving condition' (65.4%). Hospitalisation seemed to have a positive contribution to reaching the goals 'remaining alive', 'knowing what is wrong', 'feeling better', 'reducing pain' and 'controlling disease'. Hospitalisation seemed to contribute little to reaching the goals in the categories 'enjoying life', 'independency and freedom', 'improving daily functioning', 'hobbies and work' and 'social functioning'. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for healthcare professionals to know the goals of their patients. The majority of these goals were not achieved at hospital discharge. It is important to be aware of this, so sufficient aftercare can be arranged and patients can be prepared.

Association of Deficits Identified by Geriatric Assessment With Deterioration of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Treated for Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: Accumulation of geriatric deficits, leading to an increased frailty state, makes patients susceptible for decline in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC). Objective: To assess the association of single and accumulated geriatric deficits with HRQOL decline in patients after treatment for HNC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between October 2014 and May 2016, patients at a tertiary referral center were included in the Oncological Life Study (OncoLifeS), a prospective data biobank, and followed up for 2 years. A consecutive series of 369 patients with HNC underwent geriatric assessment at baseline; a cohort of 283 patients remained eligible for analysis, and after 2 years, 189 patients remained in the study. Analysis was performed between March and November 2020. Interventions or Exposures: Geriatric assessment included scoring of the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27, polypharmacy, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Activities of Daily Living, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL), Timed Up & Go, Mini-Mental State Examination, 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale, marital status, and living situation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHS/QOL) scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. Differences between patients were evaluated using linear mixed models at 3 months after treatment (main effects, ß [95% CI]) and declining course per year during follow-up (interaction × time, ß [95% CI]), adjusted for baseline GHS/QOL scores, and age, sex, stage, and treatment modality. Results: Among the 283 patients eligible for analysis, the mean (SD) age was 68.3 (10.9) years, and 193 (68.2%) were male. Severe comorbidity (ß = -7.00 [-12.43 to 1.56]), risk of malnutrition (ß = -6.18 [-11.55 to -0.81]), and IADL restrictions (ß = -10.48 [-16.39 to -4.57]) were associated with increased GHS/QOL decline at 3 months after treatment. Severe comorbidity (ß = -4.90 [-9.70 to -0.10]), IADL restrictions (ß = -5.36 [-10.50 to -0.22]), restricted mobility (ß = -6.78 [-12.81 to -0.75]), signs of depression (ß = -7.08 [-13.10 to -1.06]), and living with assistance or in a nursing home (ß = -8.74 [-15.75 to -1.73]) were associated with further GHS/QOL decline during follow-up. Accumulation of domains with geriatric deficits was a major significant factor for GHS/QOL decline at 3 months after treatment (per deficient domain ß = -3.17 [-5.04 to -1.30]) and deterioration during follow-up (per domain per year ß = -2.74 [-4.28 to -1.20]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective cohort study, geriatric deficits were significantly associated with HRQOL decline after treatment for HNC. Therefore, geriatric assessment may aid decision-making, indicate interventions, and reduce loss of HRQOL. Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NL7839.

'What matters to you?' Health outcome prioritisation in treatment decision-making for older patients.

BACKGROUND: for shared decision-making, it is important to discuss of the patients' priorities in order to align treatment decisions with these priorities. OBJECTIVE: to assess the most important health outcome for older patients on the verge of making a treatment decision, using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT). Secondary objectives were the feasibility of the OPT and patient variables associated with prioritising different health outcomes. DESIGN: retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: at the University Medical Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands, 350 patients were included who visited the geriatric outpatient clinic during the work-up regarding a complex treatment decision (such as cancer treatment or heart valve replacement). METHODS: during geriatric assessment, patients prioritised between four health outcomes, using the OPT. RESULTS: median age was 78.5 years, 172 (49.1%) were referred regarding a treatment decision for a malignant disease. Cognitive impairment was present in 23.6%. Most patients (55.2%) prioritised maintaining independence as their most important goal, followed by extending life in 21.1%. Only cognitive impairment was significantly associated with prioritising extending life as the most important health outcome. For 107 patients (30.6%), the OPT was not feasible; these patients more often had malnutrition and assisted living. CONCLUSIONS: the main health outcome of older patients on the verge of making a treatment decision was maintaining independence, followed by extending life. Patients with cognitive impairment more often prioritised extending life. The OPT was feasible as a decision aid for most patients. For optimal shared decision-making, it is crucial to take patient preferences into account.

Frailty and restrictions in geriatric domains are associated with surgical complications but not with radiation-induced acute toxicity in head and neck cancer patients: A prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the association between frailty screening and geriatric assessment (GA) on short term adverse events in patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC) for the first time in a prospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed HNC patients undergoing curative treatment were prospectively included in OncoLifeS, a data biobank. Prior to the start of treatment, frailty was assessed with a GA, Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Geriatric-8 (G8). The GA included comorbidity (Adult Comorbidity Evaluation - 27), nutritional status (Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool), functional status ((instrumental) Activities of Daily Living), mobility (Timed Up & Go), psychological (Geriatric Depression Scale 15) and cognitive (Mini Mental State Examination) measures. Clinically relevant postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 2) and acute radiation-induced toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 ≥ grade 2) were defined as outcome measures. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed, yielding odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). RESULTS: Of the 369 included patients, 259 patients were eligible for analysis. Postoperative complications occurred in 41/148 (27.7%) patients and acute radiation-induced toxicity was present in 86/160 (53.7%) patients. Number of deficit domains of GA (OR = 1.71, 95%CI = 1.14-2.56), GFI (OR = 2.54, 95%CI = 1.02-6.31) and G8 (OR5.59, 95%CI = 2.14-14.60) were associated with postoperative complications, but not with radiation-induced toxicity. CONCLUSION: Frailty and restrictions in geriatric domains were associated with postoperative complications, but not with radiation-induced acute toxicity in curatively treated HNC patients. The results of this prospective study further emphasizes the importance of geriatric evaluation, particularly before surgery.

Was it worth it? Benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation from a patient's perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an important treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. To improve patient selection, shared decision-making is recommended to elicit patients' treatment expectations and goals. We assessed patients' expectations and goals before TAVI treatment and whether these were met after treatment. Additionally, we evaluated how meeting these goals aligned with quality of life and functional recovery. DESIGN: A mixed method study. SETTING: An academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four patients undergoing TAVI between 2015 and 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' expectations and goals were assessed qualitatively before treatment. Six to twelve months post procedure, quality of life was measured with the EuroQuol-5D and any change in the number of dependencies in (instrumental) activities of daily living was assessed. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 81.5 years, and 37.8% were male. Regaining the ability to engage in a specific hobby or activity was the most important treatment goal (33 patients, 54.1%), followed by reducing symptoms (19 patients 31.1%). 66.2% of patients stated that their treatment goal was met. Quality of life was higher in this group, as compared with patients who had not met their treatment goal. Twenty-three patients (31.1%) showed functional improvement. CONCLUSION: TAVI patients were quite capable of eliciting treatment goals and a majority stated, after treatment, that these had been met patients' experience of treatment benefits regarding these goals had poor alignment with functional outcomes. This raises questions regarding relevant outcome measurements in this population, and could aid in improving shared decision-making and patient selection for TAVI.

How well do healthcare professionals know of the priorities of their older patients regarding treatment outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: For shared decision making, it is crucial to identify patients' priorities regarding health outcomes. Our aim was to study whether healthcare professionals know these priorities. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we included older patients who had to make a treatment decision, their general practitioners (GPs) and their medical specialists. Agreement between the patients' main health outcome as prioritised by using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) and the perception of the same outcome by their healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included. Median age was 76 years, 87.4% of patients presented with malignant disease. The majority prioritised maintaining independence (51.7%), followed by extending life (27.6%). The agreement between patients and healthcare professionals was low (GPs 41.7%, kappa 0.067, p = 0.39), medical specialists 40.3%, kappa 0.074, p = 0.33). Positively related to agreement was patient's age > 75, and a longer relation with their patients (for GPs), and the patient having no partner (for medical specialist). Having a malignant disease, dependent living and functional deficits were negatively related to agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals have poor perceptions of their patients' priorities. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To realise patient-centered care, it is crucial to discuss priorities explicitly with all patients.

The effect of treatment modifications by an onco-geriatric MDT on one-year mortality, days spent at home and postoperative complications.

OBJECTIVES: Decision-making in older patients with cancer can be complex, as benefits of treatment should be weighed against possible side-effects and life-expectancy. A novel care pathway was set up incorporating geriatric assessment into treatment decision-making for older cancer patients. Treatment decisions could be modified following discussion in an onco-geriatric multidisciplinary team (MDT). We assessed the effect of treatment modifications on outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was performed in the surgical department of a University Hospital. Patients of 70 years and older with a solid malignancy were included. All patients underwent a nurse-led geriatric assessment (GA) and were discussed in an onco-geriatric MDT. This could result in a modified or an unchanged treatment advice compared to the regular tumor board. Primary outcome was one-year mortality. Secondary outcomes were post-operative complications and days spent in hospital in the first year after inclusion. RESULTS: For the 184 patients in the analyses, the median age was 77.5 years and 41.8% were female. For 46 patients (25%), the treatment advice was modified by the onco-geriatric MDT. There was no significant difference in one-year mortality between the unchanged and modified group (29.7% versus 26.1%, p = 0.7). There were, however, significantly fewer days spent in hospital (median 5 vs 8.5 days p = 0.02) and fewer grade II or higher postoperative complications (13.3% versus 35.5% p = 0.005) in the modified group. CONCLUSION: Incorporating geriatric assessment in decision-making did not lead to excess one-year mortality, but did result in fewer complications and days spent in hospital.