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.

The Impact of the Pandemic on the Quality of Colorectal and Anal Cancer Care, and 2-Year Clinical Outcomes.

We undertook a retrospective study to compare the quality of care delivered to a cohort of newly diagnosed adults with colon, rectal or anal cancer during the early phase of COVID-19 (02/20-12/20) relative to the same period in the year prior (the comparator cohort), and examine the impact of the pandemic on 2-year disease progression and all-cause mortality. We observed poorer performance on a number of quality measures, such as approximately three times as many patients in the COVID-19 cohort experienced 30-day post-surgical readmission (10.5% vs. 3.6%; SD:0.27). Despite these differences, we observed no statistically significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and time to either all-cause mortality (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27, p = 0.50) or disease progression (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.64, p = 0.41). However, there was a substantial reduction in new patient consults during the early phase of COVID-19 (12.2% decrease), which appeared to disproportionally impact patients who traditionally experience sociodemographic disparities in access to care, given that the COVID-19 cohort skewed younger and there were fewer patients from neighborhoods with the highest Housing and Dwelling, ands Age and Labour Force marginalization quintiles. Future work is needed to understand the more downstream effects of COVID-19 related changes on cancer care to inform planning for future disruptions in care.

Oncology care providers' perceptions and anticipated barriers regarding the use of geriatric assessment in routine clinic practice: A mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) is currently not a standard of cancer care across Canada. In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, there are no known formal geriatric teams in outpatient oncology settings. Therefore, it is not known whether, how, and to what extent GA is performed in oncology clinics, or what supports are needed to carry out a GA. The objective of this study was to explore Saskatchewan oncology care providers' knowledge, perceptions, and practices regarding GA, and their perceived barriers to implementing formal GA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, oncology physicians and nurses within the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (SCA) were invited to participate in an anonymous survey and individual open-ended interview. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; free-text responses provided in the survey were summarized. Data from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 physicians and 30 clinic nurses participated in the survey (response rate: 24% [physicians] and 38.0% [nurses]). In terms of cancer treatment and management, the majority (74% of physicians and 62% of nurses) stated considerations for older adults are different than younger patients. More than half (53% of physicians and 58% of nurses) reported making treatment and management decisions primarily based on judgement versus validated tools. For physicians whose practices involve prescribing chemotherapy (16/19), 75% rarely or never use validated tools (e.g., CARG, CRASH) to assess risk of chemotoxicity for older patients. Lack of time and supporting staff and feeling unsure as to where to refer older patients for help or follow-up were the most commonly voiced anticipated barriers to implementing GA. Two physicians and six nurses (n = 8) participated in the open-ended interviews. Main themes included: (1) tension between knowing the importance of GA versus capacity and (2) buy-in. DISCUSSION: Our findings review barriers and opportunities for implementing GA in oncology care in Saskatchewan and provides foundational knowledge to inform efforts to promote personalized medicine and to optimize cancer care for older adults with cancer in this region.

TOward a comPrehensive supportive Care intervention for Older men with metastatic Prostate cancer (TOPCOP3): A pilot randomized controlled trial and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Current management of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) includes androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARATs), which is associated with substantial toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment and management and remote symptom monitoring have been shown to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their efficacy in patients being treated with ARATs has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to examine whether these interventions, alone or in combination, can improve treatment tolerability and quality of life (QOL) for older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on ARATs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TOPCOP3 is a multi-centre, factorial pilot clinical trial coupled with an embedded process evaluation. The study includes four treatment arms: geriatric assessment and management (GA + M); remote symptom monitoring (RSM); geriatric assessment and management plus remote symptom monitoring; and usual care and will be followed for six months. The aim is to recruit 168 patients between two cancer centres in Toronto, Canada. Eligible participants will be randomized equally via REDCap. Participants in all arms will complete a comprehensive baseline assessment upon enrollment following the Geriatric Core dataset, as well as follow-up assessments at 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 months. The co-primary outcomes will be grade 3-5 toxicity and QOL. Toxicities will be graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. QOL will be measured by patient self-reporting using the EuroQol 5 dimensions of health questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, insomnia, and depression. Finally, four process evaluation outcomes will also be observed, namely feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability, along with implementation barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected to observe the effects of GA + M and RSM on QOL and toxicities experienced by older adults receiving ARATs for metastatic prostate cancer. Data will also be collected to help the design and conduct of a definitive multicentre phase III randomized controlled trial. This study will extend supportive care interventions for older adults with cancer into new areas and inform the design of larger trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05582772).

Stage of diagnosis and survival for prostate cancer among immigrant men in Ontario, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: We previously identified specific immigrant groups (West African and Caribbean) with increased incidence of prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada. In this population-level retrospective cohort study, we used administrative databases to compare stage of diagnosis, 5-year overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival for immigrants versus long-term residents of Ontario. METHODS: We linked several provincial-level databases available at ICES, an independent, non-profit research institute. We included all male Ontario residents 20-105 years of age who had an incident prostate cancer diagnosis date between March 31, 2008 and March 31, 2017, stratified into immigrants vs. long-term residents. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds of early (stage I-II) vs. late (III-IV) stage of diagnosis, adjusting for age, co-morbidities, neighbourhood income and continuity of care. We produced Kaplan-Meier curves for 5-year overall survival and for 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Compared to long-term residents, men from West Africa (adjusted odds ratio 1.66 [95% CI 1.16-2.38], East Africa (AOR 1.54 [95% CI 1.02-2.33]) and the Caribbean (AOR 1.22 [95% CI 1.01-1.47]) had a diagnostic stage advantage, and men from South Asia were most likely to be diagnosed at a late stage. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, overall and prostate cancer-specific survival were higher for immigrants than long-term residents. The highest five-year overall survival was seen for men from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, and the lowest was seen for South Asian men, where 11.7% died within five years of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Immigrant men in Ontario with prostate cancer are more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage and to survive for 5 years than long-term residents. Among immigrant men, men from the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa have the greatest stage and survival advantage and South Asian men the least. Differences in awareness, diagnostic suspicion, genetic predisposition, and social factors may play a role in these findings.

Understanding the incidence, duration, and severity of symptoms through daily symptom monitoring among frail and non-frail older patients receiving metastatic prostate cancer treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) experience high symptom burden associated with treatment. Frailty may exacerbate treatment toxicity. The aim of this study was to explore short-term treatment toxicity in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Older adults with metastatic prostate cancer starting chemotherapy, androgen-receptor-axis targeted therapies, or radium-223 participated in a prospective, multicentre, observational study. Participants self-reported symptoms daily using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System for one treatment cycle via internet or telephone. The most common moderate-to-severe symptoms (score≥4), their duration, and the proportion of participants who experienced improvements in symptom severity (score<4) after reporting moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline were determined using descriptive statistics. Once-weekly symptom questionnaires were administered and analyzed using linear mixed effect models. Symptom incidence, duration, and frailty associations were assessed using t-tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Ninety participants completed the study (mean age=77 years [standard deviation=6.1], 42% frail [Vulnerable Elders Survey≥3]). The most common moderate-to-severe symptoms across cohorts were fatigue (46.8%), insomnia (42.9%), poor wellbeing (41.2%), pain (37.5%), and decreased appetite (37.1%). Poor wellbeing had a higher incidence in frail participants (62.5% in frail vs. 31.4% in non-frail, p=0.039). Symptom duration varied across cohorts and between frail and non-frail participants. Among participants who reported moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline, no more than 15% improved in any symptom. There were statistically significant improvements in weekly symptoms for fatigue, decreased appetite, and insomnia in the chemotherapy cohort only. DISCUSSION: Limitations include a short follow-up duration, lack of a control group, and few radium-223 participants. Regular symptom monitoring can help clinicians understand temporal patterns and durations of symptoms and inform supportive care approaches.

Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of race and older age compounds existing health disparities experienced by historically marginalised communities. Therefore, racialised older adults with cancer are more disadvantaged in their access to cancer clinical trials compared with age-matched counterparts. To determine what has already been published in this area, the rapid scoping review question are: what are the barriers, facilitators and potential solutions for enhancing access to cancer clinical trials among racialised older adults? METHODS: We will use a rapid scoping review methodology in which we follow the six-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley, including a systematic search of the literature with abstract and full-text screening to be conducted by two independent reviewers, data abstraction by one reviewer and verification by a second reviewer using an Excel data abstraction sheet. Articles focusing on persons aged 18 and over who identify as a racialised person with cancer, that describe therapies/therapeutic interventions/prevention/outcomes related to barriers, facilitators and solutions to enhancing access to and equity in cancer clinical trials will be eligible for inclusion in this rapid scoping review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the scoping review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.

How representative are participants in geriatric oncology clinical trials? The case of the 5C RCT in geriatric oncology: A cross-sectional comparison to a geriatric oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Frail older adults make up a substantial portion of the older adult population. However, frail patients are often excluded from randomized controlled trials. This underrepresentation restricts the extent to which trial findings can be generalized to this population. We compared a sample from the Canadian 5C Randomized Controlled Trial investigating comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the geriatric oncology setting in terms of frailty to patients referred to the Older Adults with Cancer Clinic (OACC) to determine if the trial sample was representative of the normal geriatric oncology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline CGA data of 5C Trial participants seen at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM), were compared to data from OACC patients that were seen during the duration of the 5C trial (between April 2018 and April 2020) and that satisfied the 5C inclusion criteria. To assess the frailty of samples, sex, age, disease site, comorbidity level, medical optimization, social supports, functional status, falls risk, nutrition, cognition, and mood were compared between 5C participants and OACC patients using Fisher's exact and independent samples t-test. RESULTS: A sample of 115 5C participants and 205 OACC patients were included. The mean age of 5C participants and OACC patients was 75.4 and 81.6 years, respectively (p < 0.001). The distribution of disease sites was significantly different between the samples (p < 0.001) and OACC patients were also significantly more impaired compared to 5C participants in comorbidity (23.4% versus 10.4% high comorbidity) (p = 0.001), IADL dependence (55.1% versus 42.6%) (p = 0.036), impaired physical function (70.6% versus 31.3%) (p < 0.001), falls risk (67.8% versus 27%) (p < 0.001), impaired nutrition (55.6% versus 40.9%) (p = 0.014), and cognition (47.2% versus 10%) (p < 0.001). There were no differences in sex, medication optimization, poor social supports, and impaired mood between the samples. DISCUSSION: The 5C sample was less frail and younger than patients seen in the geriatric oncology clinic. Finding strategies to address barriers to the inclusion of frailer older adults is important to increase their representation in future trials to allow findings to be generalized to this vulnerable population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03154671.

Home-based versus supervised group exercise in men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: A randomized controlled trial and economic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Differences between health outcomes, participation/adoption, and cost-effectiveness of home-based (HOME) interventions and supervised group-based training (GROUP) in men with prostate cancer (PC) on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are currently unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy, adherence, and cost-effectiveness of HOME versus GROUP in men on ADT for PC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicentre, 2-arm non-inferiority randomized controlled trial and companion cost-effectiveness analysis. Men with PC on ADT were recruited from August 2016 to March 2020 from four Canadian centres and randomized 1:1 to GROUP or HOME. All study participants engaged in aerobic and resistance training four to five days weekly for six months. Fatigue [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F)] and functional endurance [6-min walk test (6MWT)] at six months were the co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, physical fitness, body composition, blood markers, sedentary behaviour, and adherence. Between-group differences in primary outcomes were compared to margins of 3 points for FACT-F and 40 m for 6MWT using a Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Secondary outcomes were compared with ANCOVA, Costs included Ministry of Health costs, program costs, patient out-of-pocket, and time costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT02834416. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants (mean [standard deviation (SD)] age, 70 [9.0] years) were enrolled (GROUP n = 20; HOME n = 18). There was an 89.8% probability that HOME was non-inferior to GROUP for both fatigue and functional endurance and a 9.5% probability that HOME reduced fatigue compared to GROUP (mean [SD] change, 12.1 [8.1] vs 3.6 [6.1]; p = 0.040) at six months. Adherence was similar among study arms. HOME was cost-saving (mean difference: -$4122) relative to GROUP. DISCUSSION: A HOME exercise intervention appears non-inferior to GROUP for fatigue and functional endurance and requires fewer resources to implement. HOME appears to ameliorate fatigue more than GROUP, but has comparable effects on other clinically relevant outcomes. Although limited by sample size and attrition, these results support further assessment of home-based programs.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in Older Adults With Cancer: Economic Evaluation Within 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment (GA) is a guideline-recommended approach to optimize cancer management in older adults. We conducted a cost-utility analysis alongside the 5C randomized controlled trial to compare GA and management (GAM) plus usual care (UC) against UC alone in older adults with cancer. METHODS: The economic evaluation, conducted from societal and health care payer perspectives, used a 12-month time horizon. The Canadian 5C study randomly assigned patients to receive GAM or UC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using the EuroQol five dimension-5L questionnaire and health care utilization using cost diaries and chart reviews. We evaluated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for the full sample and preselected subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included, of whom 173 received GAM and 177 UC. At 12 months, the average QALYs per patient were 0.728 and 0.751 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔQALY, -0.023 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.028]). Considering a societal perspective, the total average costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) per patient were $46,739 and $45,177 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔCost, $1,563 [95% CI, -$6,583 to $10,403]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, GAM was not cost-effective compared with UC (INMB, -$2,713 [95% CI, -$11,767 to $5,801]). The INMB was positive ($2,984 [95% CI, -$7,050 to $14,179]; probability of being cost-effective, 72%) for patients treated with curative intent, but remained negative for patients treated with palliative intent (INMB, -$9,909 [95% CI, -$24,436 to $4,153]). Findings were similar considering a health care payer perspective. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first cost-utility analysis of GAM in cancer. GAM was cost-effective for patients with cancer treated with curative but not with palliative intent. The study provides further considerations for future adoption of GAM in practice.

Defining an Abnormal Geriatric Assessment: Which Deficits Matter Most?

At present, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an abnormal geriatric assessment (GA) in geriatric oncology. Various threshold numbers of abnormal GA domains are often used, but how well these are associated with treatment plan modification (TPM) and whether specific GA domains are more important in this context remains uncertain. A retrospective review of the geriatric oncology clinic database at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, including new patients seen for treatment decision making from May 2015 to June 2022, was conducted. Logistic regression modelling was performed to determine the association between various predictor variables (including the GA domains and numerical thresholds) and TPM. The study cohort (n = 736) had a mean age of 80.7 years, 46.1% was female, and 78.3% had a VES-13 score indicating vulnerability (≥3). In the univariable analysis, the best-performing threshold number of abnormal domains based on area under the curve (AUC) was 4 (AUC 0.628). The best-performing multivariable model (AUC 0.704) included cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. In comparison, the multivariable model with the sole addition of the threshold of 4 had an AUC of 0.689. Overall, an abnormal GA may be best defined as one with abnormalities in the domains of cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. The optimal numerical threshold to predict TPM is 4.

Effectiveness of geriatric assessment and management in older cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and multimorbidity among older cancer patients affect treatment tolerance and efficacy. Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management is recommended to optimize cancer treatment, but its effect on various outcomes remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cost-effectiveness studies comparing comprehensive geriatric assessment (with or without implementation of recommendations) to usual care in older cancer patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane trials from inception to January 27, 2023, for RCTs and cost-effectiveness studies. Pooled estimates for outcomes were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 19 full-text articles representing 17 RCTs were included. Average participant age was 72-80 years, and 31%-62% were female. Comprehensive geriatric assessment type, mode of delivery, and evaluated outcomes varied across studies. Meta-analysis revealed no difference in risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.08. 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.29), hospitalization (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.10), early treatment discontinuation (RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.19), initial dose reduction (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.26), and subsequent dose reduction (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.09). However, the risk of treatment toxicity was statistically significantly lower in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.86). No cost-effectiveness studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, comprehensive geriatric assessment was not associated with a difference in risk of mortality, hospitalization, treatment discontinuation, and dose reduction but was associated with a lower risk of treatment toxicity indicating its potential to optimize cancer treatment in this population. Further research is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

Impact of COVID-19 on older adults with cancer and their caregivers' cancer treatment experiences study: The ICE-OLD study.

The COVID-19 pandemic and health services impacts related to physical distancing posed many challenges for older adults with cancer. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of the pandemic on cancer treatment plans and cancer treatment experiences of older adults (ie, aged 65 years and older) and their caregiver' experiences of caring for older adults during the pandemic to highlight gaps in care experienced. In this multi-centre qualitative study guided by an interpretive descriptive research approach we interviewed older adults diagnosed with cancer and caregivers caring for them. Participants were recruited via cancer treatment centres in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario (Vancouver and Toronto), Canada, and through an online ad sent out through patient advocacy organization newsletters. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were analyzed using an interpretive thematic analysis approach. A total of 27 individuals (17 older adults, 52.9% female; 10 caregivers, 90% female) participated in interviews lasting on average 45 minutes. Older adults with cancer described many impacts and pressures created by the pandemic on their cancer experiences, though they generally felt that the pandemic did not impact treatment decisions made and access to care. We grouped our findings into two main themes with their accompanying sub-themes, related to: (1) alterations in the individual and dyadic cancer experience; and (2) navigating health and cancer systems during the pandemic. The additional stressors the pandemic placed on older adults during their treatment and decision-making process and their caregivers expose the need to create or avail additional supports for future disruptions in care.

HCT frailty scale for younger and older adults undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

The HCT Frailty Scale is an easy prognostic tool composed of (a) Clinical Frailty Scale; (b) Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; (c) Timed-up-and-Go test; (d) Grip Strength; (e) Self-Health Rated Questionnaire; (f) Falls tests; (g) Albumin and C-reactive protein levels. This scale was designed to classify allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) candidates into fit, pre-frail and frail groups, irrespective of age. This study evaluates the ability of this frailty classification to predict overall survival (OS) and non-relapse mortality (NRM) in adult patients of all ages, in a prospective sample of 298 patients transplanted between 2018 and 2020. At first consultation, 103 (34.6%) patients were fit, 148 (49.7%) pre-frail, and 47 (15.8%) were frail. The 2-year OS and NRM of the three groups were 82.9%, 67.4%, and 48.3% (P < 0.001), and 5.4%, 19.2%, and 37.7% (P < 0.001). For patients younger than 60 years (n = 174), the 2-year OS and NRM of fit, pre-frail, and frail groups were 88.4%, 69.3% and 53.1% (P = 0.002), and 5.8%, 22.8%, and 34.8% (P = 0.005), respectively; and in patients older than 60 (n = 124), OS and NRM were 75.5%, 63.8% and 41.4% (P = 0.006), and 4.9%, 16.4%, and 42.1% (P = 0.001). In conclusion, frailty predicted worse transplant outcomes in both younger and older adults.

Age-related differences in symptom distress among patients with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in symptom distress among older (age 65-74) and very old (age 75+) patients with cancer, compared to younger patients, remain to be well explored. These differences are important to understand given the heterogeneity of older populations and may have implications for age-appropriate symptom detection and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined routinely collected Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised (ESAS-r) scores from 9,143 patients age 40+ initiating chemotherapy for solid malignancies at a single academic cancer centre, between September 2011 and May 2019. We used multivariable logistic regression models to determine associations between the most common symptoms and age group (ages 40-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85+), cancer site, clinical stage, sex, and income levels. We focused our findings on patients with the five most common cancers, breast (n = 1,532), prostate (n = 923), lung (n = 889), pancreatic (n = 429), and colorectal (n = 368), prior to receiving treatment. RESULTS: Within our sample, 58.0% were age 40-64, 27.3% age 65-74, 11.8% age 75-84, and 2.9% age 85+. Among the nine symptoms in the ESAS-r (anxiety, depression, tiredness, wellbeing, nausea, pain, drowsiness, appetite, and shortness of breath), the most common symptoms overall were anxiety (moderate-severe scores [ESAS-r 4 or higher] were reported by 33.8% of patients), lack of well-being (38.3%), and tiredness (38.3%). Older age was associated with lower odds of moderate/severe anxiety (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.90 for age 65-74; OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.70-0.93 for age 75-84; OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.47-0.82 for age 85+; referent is 40-64-year-olds for all analyses), and increased odds of tiredness (OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.90-1.11 for age 65-74; OR 1.19, 95%CI 1.04-1.37 for age 75-84; and OR 1.34, 95%CI 1.04-1.72 for age 85+). Advanced stage, female sex, and lower income levels were associated with higher odds of moderate/severe tiredness, anxiety, and lack of well-being in adjusted models. Patients with pancreatic and lung cancers reported worse scores for these three symptoms than patients with other cancers. DISCUSSION: Older age was associated with differences in symptom experiences such as increased tiredness and reduced anxiety. Supportive care interventions and future research should focus on addressing these symptoms to improve patient quality of life.