Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy: a cluster-randomised controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) improve outcomes in older patients with cancer treated with surgery or chemotherapy. It is unclear whether GAM may provide better function and quality of life (QoL), or be cost-effective, in a radiotherapy (RT) setting. METHODS: In this Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study, we assessed the impact of a GAM intervention involving specialist and primary health services. It was initiated in-hospital at the start of RT by assessing somatic and mental health, function, and social situation, followed by individually adapted management plans and systematic follow-up in the municipalities until 8 weeks after the end of RT, managed by municipal nurses as patients' care coordinators. Thirty-two municipal/city districts were 1:1 randomised to intervention or conventional care. Patients with cancer ≥ 65 years, referred for RT, were enrolled irrespective of cancer type, treatment intent, and frailty status, and followed the allocation of their residential district. The primary outcome was physical function measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes were overall quality of life (QoL), physical performance, use and costs of health services. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Study registration at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03881137. RESULTS: We included 178 patients, 89 in each group with comparable age (mean 74.1), sex (female 38.2%), and Edmonton Frail Scale scores (mean 3.4 [scale 0-17], scores 0-3 [fit] in 57%). More intervention patients received curative RT (76.4 vs 61.8%), had higher irradiation doses (mean 54.1 vs 45.5 Gy), and longer lasting RT (mean 4.4 vs 3.6 weeks). The primary outcome was completed by 91% (intervention) vs 88% (control) of patients. No significant differences between groups on predefined outcomes were observed. GAM costs represented 3% of health service costs for the intervention group during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this heterogeneous cohort of older patients receiving RT, the majority was fit. We found no impact of the intervention on patient-centred outcomes or the cost of health services. Targeting a more homogeneous group of only pre-frail and frail patients is strongly recommended in future studies needed to clarify the role and organisation of GAM in RT settings.

Disability level and use of long-term care services in Norway: a nation-wide registry study.

AIMS: In Norway, disability level is an important criterion when deciding the type and level of long-term care services. Each care recipient can be scored on 20 different disability level measures. Our aims were to investigate completeness in disability level information in the Norwegian Registry of Primary Health Care (NRPHC), to group disability level measures into meaningful groups, and to study the relationship between grouped disability scores and the type of services received. METHODS: We retrieved information on type of care and disability level from the NRPHC on individuals who received long-term care services in 2022. Type of care was divided into hierarchical and mutually exclusive groups, with long-term institutional care as the most complex service group. We used principal components analysis to summarise and visualise the information in the 20 different disability level measures, and to create grouped scores. RESULTS: A total of 386,697 persons aged 0-104 years were registered as recipients of long-term care services in Norway on 31 December 2022. Information on disability measures were of high completeness (72.4 % of the population were registered with all 20 measures) but was lower for younger age groups in which the number of recipients was lower. Principal components analyses identified two groups of measures, which we termed physical and cognitive functioning. Physical and cognitive functioning were poorest for individuals receiving the most complex and extensive services. CONCLUSIONS: NRPHC disability data are reasonably complete, the 20 measures readily fall into two distinct categories, and seem to reflect real life differences in disability.

Implementation of advance care planning in the routine care for acutely admitted patients in geriatric units: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acutely ill and frail older adults and their next of kin are often poorly involved in treatment and care decisions. This may lead to either over- or undertreatment and unnecessary burdens. The aim of this project is to improve user involvement and health services for frail older adults living at home, and their relatives, by implementing advance care planning (ACP) in selected hospital wards, and to evaluate the clinical and the implementation interventions. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized trial with 12 hospital units. The intervention arm receives implementation support for 18 months; control units receive the same support afterwards. The ACP intervention consists of 1. Clinical intervention: ACP; 2. Implementation interventions: Implementation team, ACP coordinator, network meetings, training and supervision for health care personnel, documentation tools and other resources, and fidelity measurements with tailored feedback; 3. Implementation strategies: leadership commitment, whole ward approach and responsive evaluation. Fidelity will be measured three times in the intervention arm and twice in the control arm. Here, the primary outcome is the difference in fidelity changes between the arms. We will also include 420 geriatric patients with one close relative and an attending clinician in a triadic sub-study. Here, the primary outcomes are quality of communication and decision-making when approaching the end of life as perceived by patients and next of kin, and congruence between the patient's preferences for information and involvement and the clinician's perceptions of the same. For patients we will also collect clinical data and health register data. Additionally, all clinical staff in both arms will be invited to answer a questionnaire before and during the implementation period. To explore barriers and facilitators and further explore the significance of ACP, qualitative interviews will be performed in the intervention units with patients, next of kin, health care personnel and implementation teams, and with other stakeholders up to national level. Lastly, we will evaluate resource utilization, costs and health outcomes in a cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: The project may contribute to improved implementation of ACP as well as valuable knowledge and methodological developments in the scientific fields of ACP, health service research and implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05681585. Registered 03.01.23.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing advance care planning in naïve contexts - where to look when plowing new terrain?

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a way of applying modern medicine to the principle of patient autonomy and ensuring that patients receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences. Robust evidence supports the benefits of ACP, but it remains an underutilized resource in most countries. This paper goes from the naïve point of view, and seeks to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementation in unfamiliarized contexts and in a whole system approach involving the clinical, institutional and policy level to improve the implementation of ACP. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were chosen to enable an explorative, flexible design. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 health care professionals and chief physicians in hospitals and in municipalities. The thematic analysis was done following Braun and Clarke's strategy for thematic analysis. RESULTS: The main reported barriers were the lack of time and space, a lack of culture and leadership legitimizing ACP, lack of common communication systems, and unclear responsibility about who should initiate, resulting in missed opportunities and overtreatment. Policy development, public and professional education, and standardization of documentation were reported as key to facilitate ACP and build trust across the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Progressively changing the education of health professionals and the clinical culture are major efforts that need to be tackled to implement ACP in unfamiliarized contexts, particularly in contexts where patient's wishes are not legally binding. This will need to be tackled through rectifying the misconception that ACP is only about death, and providing practical training for health professionals, as well as developing policies and legislation on how to include patients and caregivers in the planning of care.

Geriatric impairments are prevalent and predictive of survival in older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: A systematic assessment of problems that are frequent in older age (geriatric assessment [GA]) provides prognostic information for patients undergoing cancer surgery and systemic cancer treatment. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of geriatric impairments and their impact on survival in older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy (RT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-centre prospective observational study was conducted including patients ≥65 years referred for curative or palliative RT. Prior to RT, we performed a modified GA (mGA) assessing comorbidities, medications, nutritional status basic- and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) mobility, falls, cognition and depressive symptoms. Impairments in each mGA domain were defined. Overall survival (OS) was presented by Kaplan Meier plots for groups defined according to the number of impairments, and compared by log-rank test. The association between mGA domains and OS was assessed by Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. RESULTS: Between February 2017 and July 2018, 301 patients were included, 142 (47.2%) were women. Mean age was 73.6 (SD 6.3) years, 162 (53.8%) received curative RT. During the median observation time of 24.2 months (min 0.3, max 25.9), 123 (40.9%) patients died. In the overall cohort, 49 (16.3%) patients had no geriatric impairment, 81 (26.9%) had four or more. OS significantly decreased with an increasing number of impairments (p < .01). Nutritional status (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.81; 0.99], p = .038) and IADL function (HR 0.98, 95% CI [0.95; 1.00], p = .027) were independent predictors of OS. CONCLUSION: Geriatric impairments were frequent among older patients with cancer receiving RT and nutritional status and IADL function predicted OS. Targeted interventions to remediate modifiable impairments may have the potential to improve OS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Cinicaltrials.gov ID:NCT03071640.

Is Frailty Index a better predictor than pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale for neurocognitive outcomes 3-months post-stroke?

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of frailty measures for post-stroke neurocognitive disorder (NCD) remains to be evaluated. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the predictive value of pre-stroke FI with pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) for post-stroke cognitive impairment. Further, we explored the added value of including FI in prediction models for cognitive prognosis post-stroke. METHODS: We generated a 36-item Frailty Index (FI), based on the Rockwood FI, to measure frailty based on pre-stroke medical conditions recorded in the Nor-COAST multicentre prospective study baseline assessments. Consecutive participants with a FI score and completed cognitive test battery at three months were included. We generated Odds Ratio (OR) with NCD as the dependent variable. The predictors of primary interest were pre-stroke frailty and mRS. We also measured the predictive values of mRS and FI by the area (AUC) under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: 598 participants (43.0% women, mean/SD age = 71.6/11.9, mean/SD education = 12.5/3.8, mean/SD pre-stroke mRS = 0.8/1.0, mean/SD GDS pre-stroke = 1.4/0.8, mean/SD NIHSS day 1 3/4), had a FI mean/SD score = 0.14/0.10. The logistic regression analyses showed that FI (OR 3.09), as well as the mRS (OR 2.21), were strong predictors of major NCD. When FI and mRS were entered as predictors simultaneously, the OR for mRS decreased relatively more than that for FI. AUC for NCD post-stroke was higher for FI than for mRS, both for major NCD (0.762 vs 0.677) and for any NCD (0.681 vs 0.638). CONCLUSIONS: FI is a stronger predictor of post-stroke NCD than pre-stroke mRS and could be a part of the prediction models for cognitive prognosis post-stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02650531 .

Frailty among older patients receiving home care services. / Skrøpelighet blant eldre pasienter med hjemmesykepleie.

BACKGROUND: It is a policy objective for older people in need of care to be able to live at home for as long as possible and receive healthcare services outside of institutions. The degree of frailty in this group and consequent risk of emergency hospitalisation and death have not been widely studied. The objective of this project was to study these questions over a period of two years in a medium-sized Norwegian municipality. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A sample of patients aged 65 years or older who received home care nursing services on a weekly basis were included. The patients underwent geriatric assessment in their own home every six months over two years. Their degree of frailty was measured using the Frailty Index. Deaths and emergency hospitalisations were recorded over two years. RESULTS: Of the 271 patients who were asked to participate, 210 were included. Altogether 160 patients (76 %) were classified as moderately or severely frail. During the observation period, 307 hospital admissions were recorded, amounting to a total of 1 235 hospitalisation days. When compared to severely frail patients, those with mild degrees of frailty were less frequently hospitalised (hazard ratio (HR) 0.33; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.60). During the two-year observation period, 63 (30 %) patients died. The mortality rate was highest in patients with severe frailty. In an adjusted Cox regression, increasing age was associated with a higher risk of death, but not with acute hospitalisation. INTERPRETATION: Older patients with home care nursing services have a high degree of frailty, and a high degree of frailty is associated with increased risk of hospitalisation and death.

Frailty indicators in older cancer patients. / Sårbarhetsfaktorer hos eldre med kreft.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients over 70 years old with cancer is growing. Chronological age provides limited information about tolerance for cancer treatment and life expectancy. We wanted to study frailty indicators of potential importance for making choices about therapy and the need for cross-disciplinary assessment for cancer patients aged ≥ 70 at an oncology outpatients clinic. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The study is a retrospective survey based on medical records of initial consultations for patients aged ≥ 70 at the Department of Oncology, Drammen Hospital, in 2017. Medication use, comorbidity and the results of the Geriatric 8 (G-8) screening tool were recorded. RESULTS: The median number of drugs taken regularly was four for the 235 patients aged ≥ 70 who were initially assessed in 2017. Cardiovascular disease was recorded in 101 patients (43 %), impaired renal function in 47 (20 %), pulmonary disease in 37 (16 %) and diabetes in 25 (11 %). A total score of < 15 was obtained for 100 (69 %) of the 144 patients scored by means of Geriatric 8, which indicates potential frailty. INTERPRETATION: Frailty indicators of potential importance for the choice of treatment and follow-up are frequently seen in older cancer patients.

Geriatric assessment is superior to oncologists' clinical judgement in identifying frailty.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a syndrome associated with increased vulnerability and an important predictor of outcomes in older cancer patients. Systematic assessments to identify frailty are seldom applied, and oncologists' ability to identify frailty is scarcely investigated. METHODS: We compared oncologists' classification of frailty (onc-frail) based on clinical judgement with a modified geriatric assessment (mGA), and investigated associations between frailty and overall survival. Patients ⩾70 years referred for medical cancer treatment were eligible. mGA-frailty was defined as impairment in at least one of the following: daily activities, comorbidity, polypharmacy, physical function or at least one geriatric syndrome (cognitive impairment, depression, malnutrition, falls). RESULTS: Three hundred and seven patients were enroled, 288 (94%) completed the mGA, 286 (93%) were rated by oncologists. Median age was 77 years, 56% had metastases, 85% performance status (PS) 0-1. Overall, 104/286 (36%) were onc-frail and 140/288 (49%) mGA-frail, the agreement was fair (kappa value 0.30 (95% CI 0.19; 0.41)), and 67 mGA-frail patients who frequently had localised disease, good PS and received curative treatment, were missed by the oncologists. Only mGA-frailty was independently prognostic for survival (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.14; 2.27; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic assessment of geriatric domains is needed to aid oncologists in identifying frail patients with poor survival.

Systematic assessment of frailty. / Systematisk vurdering av skrøpelighet.

A patient who is classified as frail is at high risk of post-surgical complications, nursing home admission, and of death. An assessment of patient frailty provides a more accurate picture of the patient's individual vulnerability than age and multimorbidity alone, and is therefore a useful aid in making clinical decisions in hospitals.

Frailty is an independent predictor of survival in older patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is prevalent in the older population. Geriatric assessment (GA) has previously been found to predict treatment tolerance and postoperative complications in older cancer patients. The aim of this study was to explore whether GA also predicts 1-year and 5-year survival after CRC surgery in older patients and to compare the predictive power of GA with that of established prognostic factors such as TNM classification of malignant tumors (TNM) stage and age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 178 CRC patients aged 70 and older were followed prospectively. All patients went through elective surgery, and GA was performed presurgery. The GA resulted in patients being divided into two groups: frail or nonfrail. All patients were followed for 5 years or until death. Data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier plots and the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (43%) were frail, and one hundred and two (57%) were nonfrail. Twenty-three patients (13%) died during the first year after surgery. One-year survival was 80% in the frail group and 92% in the nonfrail group. Five-year survival was significantly lower in frail (24%) than nonfrail patients (66%), and this difference was apparent both within the stratums of TNM stages 0-II and TNM stage III. In multivariable analysis adjusting for TNM stage, age, and sex, frailty was an independent prognostic factor for survival. CONCLUSION: A GA-based frailty assessment predicts 1-year and 5-year survival in older patients after surgery for CRC. In localized and regional disease, the impact of frailty upon 5-year survival is comparable with that of TNM stage.

Hospital use and cancer treatment by age and socioeconomic status in the last year of life: A Norwegian population-based study of patients dying of cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is the leading cause of death in Norway. In this nationwide study we describe the number and causes of hospital admissions and treatment in the final year of life for patients who died of cancer, as well as the associations to age and socioeconomic status (SES). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From nationwide registries covering 2010-2014, we identified all patients who were diagnosed with cancer 12-60 months before death and had cancer as their reported cause of death. We examined the number of overnight hospital stays, causes of admission, and treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical procedures) offered during the last year of life by individual (age, sex, comorbidity), cancer (type, stage, months since diagnosis), and socioeconomic variables (co-residential status, income, education). RESULTS: The analytical sample included 17,669 patients; 8,247 (47%) were female, mean age was 71.7 years (standard deviation 13.7). At diagnosis, 31% had metastatic disease, while 29% had an intermediate or high comorbidity burden. Altogether, 94% were hospitalized during their final year, 82% at least twice, and 33% six times or more. Patients spent a median of 23 days in hospital (interquartile range 11-41), and altogether 38% died there. Younger age, bladder and ovarian cancer, not living alone, and higher income were associated with having ≥6 hospitalizations. Cancer-related diagnoses were the main causes of hospitalizations (65%), followed by infections (11%). Around 51% had ≥1 chemotherapy episode, with large variations according to patient age and SES; patients who were younger, did not live alone, had high education, and high income received more chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was received by 15% and declined with age, and the variation according to SES characteristics was minor. Of the 12,940 patients with a cancer type where surgery is a main treatment modality, only 835 (6%) underwent surgical procedures for their primary tumor in the last year of life. DISCUSSION: Most patients who die of cancer are hospitalized multiple times during the last year of life. Hospitalizations and treatment decline with advancing age. Living alone and having low income is associated with fewer hospitalizations and less chemotherapy treatment. Whether this indicates over- or undertreatment across various groups warrants further exploration.

Self-reported electronic symptom monitoring in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer: Development of a core dataset based on expert consensus, literature review, and quality of life questionnaires.

INTRODUCTION: In cancer care, symptom monitoring during treatment results in improved clinical outcomes such as improved quality of life, longer survival, and fewer hospital admissions. However, as the majority of patients with cancer are older and have multimorbidity, they may benefit from monitoring of additional symptoms. The aim of this study was to identify a core set of symptoms to monitor in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer, including symptoms caused by treatment side effects, destabilization of comorbidities, and functional decline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a scoping literature search, 17 quality of life questionnaires were used to select 53 possible symptoms to monitor. An expert panel of cancer and geriatrics specialists was asked to participate in multiple online surveys to indicate whether these symptoms were not relevant to monitor, only relevant to monitor in a specific patient group, or relevant to monitor in all patients. In a subsequent round the list was reduced and the panel indicated how frequently these symptoms should be monitored during cancer treatment and after cancer treatment completion. Finally, a digital consensus meeting was organised to decide when symptoms had to trigger a recommendation to the patient to get in touch with their medical team. RESULTS: In total, 30 healthcare professionals participated in the online surveys. After two rounds, a dataset of 19 symptoms related to cancer, cancer treatment, functional decline, and destabilization of comorbidities was agreed upon for monitoring. Five symptoms were selected for daily monitoring during treatment, seven for weekly, and seven for monthly. After treatment completion, the panel agreed upon less frequent reporting. Additionally, nine symptoms to be monitored only in patients with specific cancer types or treatment types were chosen, such as "cough up blood" in lung cancer. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to identify a core set of symptoms to monitor in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer. Future research is needed to investigate whether the monitoring of these symptoms is feasible and improves clinical outcomes in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer.

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative.

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

How to incorporate chronic health conditions in oncologic decision-making and care for older patients with cancer? A survey among healthcare professionals.

PURPOSE: A substantial proportion of patients with cancer are older and experience multimorbidity. As the population is ageing, the management of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer will represent a significant challenge to current clinical practice. METHODS: This study aimed to (1) identify which chronic health conditions may cause change in oncologic decision-making and care in older patients and (2) provide guidance on how to incorporate these in decision-making and care provision of older patients with cancer. Based on a scoping literature review, an initial list of prevalent morbidities was developed. A subsequent survey among healthcare providers involved in the care for older patients with cancer assessed which chronic health conditions were relevant and why. RESULTS: A list of 53 chronic health conditions was developed, of which 34 were considered likely or very likely to influence decision-making or care according to the 39 healthcare professionals who responded. These conditions were further categorized into five patient profiles. From these conditions, five patient profiles were developed, namely, (1) a somatic profile consisting of cardiovascular, metabolic, and pulmonary disease, (2) a functional profile, including conditions that cause disability, dependency or a high caregiver burden, (3) a psychosocial profile, including cognitive impairment, (4) a nutritional profile also including digestive system diseases, and finally, (5) a concurrent cancer profile. All profiles were considered likely to impact decision-making with differences between treatment modalities. The impact on the care trajectory was generally considered less significant, except for patients with care dependency and psychosocial health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic health conditions have various ways of influencing oncologic decision-making and the care trajectory in older adults with cancer. Understanding why specific chronic health conditions may impact the oncologic care trajectory can aid clinicians in the management of older patients with multimorbidity, including cancer.