Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older women with early breast cancer - a systematic review of literature.

BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is an analytical tool increasingly implemented in clinical practice. Breast cancer is primarily a disease of older people; however, most evidence-based research is aimed at younger patients. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was carried out to assess the use of CGA in older breast cancer patients for clinical decision making. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched. RESULTS: A total of nine useful full text article results were found. Only five of these were exclusively concerned with early breast cancer; thus, studies involving a variety of cancer types, stages and treatments were accepted, as long as they included early breast cancer.The results comprised a series of low sources of evidence. However, all results shared a common theme: the CGA has a use in determining patient suitability for different types of cancer treatment and subsequently maximizing the patient's quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: There is not yet sufficient high level evidence to instate CGA guidelines as a mandatory practice in the management of breast cancer, due to the heterogeneity of available studies. More studies need to be conducted to cement current work on the benefits of the CGA. An area of particular interest is with regard to treatment options, especially surgery and chemotherapy, and identifying patients who may be suitable for these treatments.

The potential value of comprehensive geriatric assessment in evaluating older women with primary operable breast cancer undergoing surgery or non-operative treatment--a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer in older women raises a number of discrete issues, including how healthcare professionals can best decide which patients are candidates for surgery. A pilot study involving women aged ≥70years newly diagnosed with early operable primary breast cancer was conducted aiming to explore the potential value of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision of primary treatment followed consultation with the clinical team and was not guided by any aspect of this study. CGA, using a validated cancer-specific tool, was conducted within 6weeks and 6months after diagnosis, complemented by formal measures of quality of life (QOL) (using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23) and semi-structured interviews. A total of 47 female patients with a new diagnosis of clinically early (stage 1 or 2; cT0-2N0-1M0) operable primary breast cancer proven histologically, were recruited. RESULTS: CGA determined that increasing age (≥80years) (p=0.001), greater (≥4) comorbidity (p=0.022), greater number (≥4) of daily medications (p=0.002), and slower (≥19s) timed up and go (TUG) (p=0.016) score were significantly related to non-surgical treatment at 6weeks after diagnosis. Baseline QOL scores were generally good and they remained stable at 6months follow-up. As opposed to CGA, there was no correlation between QOL scores and the treatment modality identified. Semi-structured interviews identified themes consistent with findings from QOL assessment. CONCLUSION: The pilot study confirmed the feasibility of conducting CGA in a research setting which appeared to have value in assessing this patient population. More data will be required to definitively identify the components for geriatric assessment in this setting. The study has now extended into two more centres.