Integrating Touchscreen-Based Geriatric Assessment and Frailty Screening for Adults With Multiple Myeloma to Drive Personalized Treatment Decisions.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment (GA) results predict toxicity/survival in older adults, yet GA is not routinely used in care for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We tested a tablet-based modified GA (mGA) providing real-time results to clinicians. METHODS: One hundred sixty-five patients with MM aged ≥ 65 years facing a treatment decision from 4 sites completed a tablet-based mGA with Katz Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Lawton Instrumental ADL, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and variables from the Cancer and Aging Research Group's Chemotherapy Toxicity Calculator. Providers reviewed the assessment results at the treatment visit. RESULTS: Patients were white (72%; n = 86), mean age was 72 years (range, 65-85 years), and averaged 7.71 minutes (range, 2-17 minutes) for survey completion. Providers averaged 3.2 minutes (range, 1-10 minutes) to review mGA results. Using International Myeloma Working Group frailty score, patients were fit (39%; n = 64), intermediate fit (33%; n = 55), or frail (28%; n = 46). Providers selected more aggressive treatments in 16.3% of patients and decreased treatment intensity in 34% of patients; treatment intensification was more common for fit patients and milder treatments for frail patients (χ2 = 20.02; P < .0001). Transplant eligibility significantly correlated with fit status and transplant ineligibility with frail status (P = .004). Outcomes on 144 patients 3 months post study visit showed 19.4% (n = 28) had grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities, 38.9% (n = 56) had dose modifications, and 18% (n = 26) had early therapy cessation. CONCLUSION: Limited patient time required for survey completion and provider time for results review show mGA can be easily incorporated into clinical workflow. Real-time mGA results indicating fit/frailty status influenced treatment decisions.

Tumour boards in geriatric oncology.

Multidisciplinary tumour board is an integral part of cancer treatment planning. Although no definite survival benefits have yet been shown by mostly observational studies, other benefits of multidisciplinary tumour board have been identified. Traditionally the multidisciplinary tumour board involves participation of treating clinicians-medical, radiation and surgical oncologists. They tend to focus on the cancer alone. There is an increasing awareness that the treatment goal for cancer in older adults is not primarily on prolonging survival, with functional preservation and quality of life being particularly important for this population. The use of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and the input of the geriatrician in informing the oncologists regarding treatment decision have increasingly been shown to be beneficial. The integration of the geriatrician into the multidisciplinary tumour board should be urgently explored.

Nab-paclitaxel-based compared to docetaxel-based induction chemotherapy regimens for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

We previously reported that nab-paclitaxel-based induction chemotherapy (IC) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy resulted in low relapse rates (13%) and excellent survival in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We compare the disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) between patients given nab-paclitaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil with cetuximab (APF-C) and historical controls given docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil with cetuximab (TPF-C). Patients with locally advanced HNSCC were treated with APF-C (n = 30) or TPF-C (n = 38). After 3 cycles of IC, patients were scheduled to receive cisplatin concurrent with definitive radiotherapy. T and N classification and smoking history were similar between the two groups and within p16-positive and p16-negative subsets. The median duration of follow-up for living patients in the APF-C group was 43.5 (range: 30-58) months versus 52 (range: 13-84) months for TPF-C. The 2-year DSS for patients treated with APF-C was 96.7% [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 85.2%, 99.8%] and with TPF-C was 77.6% (CI: 62.6%, 89.7%) (P = 0.0004). Disease progression that resulted in death was more frequent in the TPF-C group (39%) compared with the APF-C group (3%) when adjusted for competing risks of death from other causes (Gray's test, P = 0.0004). In p16 positive OPSCC, the 2-year DSS for APF-C was 100% and for TPF-C was 74.6% (CI: 47.4%, 94.6%) (P = 0.0019) and the 2-year OS for APF-C was 94.1% (CI: 65.0%, 99.2%) and for TPF-C was 74.6% (CI: 39.8%, 91.1%) (P = 0.013). In p16 negative HNSCC, the 2-year DSS for APF-C was 91.7% (CI: 67.6%, 99.6%) and for TPF-C was 82.6% (CI: 64.4%, 94.8%) (P = 0.092). A 2-year DSS and OS were significantly better with a nab-paclitaxel-based IC regimen (APF-C) compared to a docetaxel-based IC regimen (TPF-C) in p16-positive OPSCC.