RESUMEN
PURPOSE: It is recommended to use comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in clinical oncology practice to improve care for geriatric cancer patients and to identify medical and social issues that may need further intervention. The purpose of this pragmatic pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Hurria et al. CGA in cancer patients 70 years of age or older undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as the feasibility of integrating it into a busy clinic practice and the psychosocial impact on these patients. METHOD: Twenty-five patients were recruited. Descriptive analysis was performed via a geriatric assessment questionnaire completed by the participants prior to their first adjuvant chemotherapy treatment and during follow-up, 2 to 6 weeks after last treatment. Additionally, study staff performed a geriatric healthcare assessment at both time points. RESULTS: The results of this pilot study show that administration is feasible despite some challenges. Administration of a CGA in a clinic setting presented some logistical issues with regard to time and space available in clinic. Analysis of patient data indicated only minor variations in patient domains from pre-chemo to post-chemo confirming previous research. Participants expressed gratitude for the extra time spent with them at a stressful time in their lives. CONCLUSION: Further information regarding the usefulness of a comprehensive geriatric assessment with regard to improving treatment selection, identifying undetected medical problems, and avoiding toxicity will be obtained if the administration of comprehensive geriatric questionnaires is incorporated into the clinic setting and considered into the allocated time for staff workload.
Asunto(s)
Evaluación Geriátrica/métodos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Quimioterapia Adyuvante , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Proyectos Piloto , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) provides information on key health domains of older adults and is recommended to help inform cancer treatment decisions and cancer care. However, GA is not feasible in many health institutions due to lack of geriatric staff and/or resources. To increase accessibility to GA and improve treatment decision making for older adults with cancer (≥65 years), we developed a self-reported, electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive Assessment for My Plan (CHAMP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Older adults with cancer were invited to join user-centered design sessions to develop the layout and content of the tool. Subsequently, they participated in usability testing to test the usability of the tool (ease of use, acceptability, etc.). Design sessions were also conducted with oncology clinicians (oncologists and nurses) to develop the tool's clinician interface. GA assessment questions and GA recommendations were guided by a systematic review and Delphi expert panel. RESULTS: A total of seventeen older adults participated in the study. Participants were mainly males (82.4%) and 75% were aged 75 years and older. Nine oncology clinicians participated in design sessions. Older adults and clinicians agreed that the tool was user-friendly. Domains in the final CHAMP tool (with questions and recommendations) included functional status, falls risk, cognitive impairment, nutrition, medication review, social supports, depression, substance use disorder, and miscellaneous items. DISCUSSION: CHAMP was designed for use by older adults and oncologists and may enhance access to GA for older adults with cancer. The next phase of the CHAMP study will involve field validation in oncology clinics.
Asunto(s)
Evaluación Geriátrica , Neoplasias , Anciano , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , Neoplasias/terapia , Oncología Médica , AutoinformeRESUMEN
PURPOSE: American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends that older adults with cancer being considered for chemotherapy receive geriatric assessment (GA) and management (GAM), but few randomized controlled trials have examined its impact on quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel 1:1 single-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial of GAM for 6 months versus usual oncologic care. Eligible patients were age 70+ years, diagnosed with a solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma, referred for first-/second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy or targeted therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary outcome QOL was measured with the global health scale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire and analyzed with a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 6 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes included functional status, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity; health care use; satisfaction; cancer treatment plan modification; and overall survival. RESULTS: From March 2018 to March 2020, 350 participants were enrolled. Mean age was 76 years and 40.3% were female. Fifty-four percent started treatment with palliative intent. Eighty-one (23.1%) patients died. GAM did not improve QOL (global QOL of 4.4 points [95% CI, 0.9 to 8.0] favoring the control arm). There was also no difference in survival, change in treatment plan, unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, and treatment toxicity between groups. CONCLUSION: GAM did not improve QOL. Most intervention group participants received GA on or after treatment initiation per patient request. Considering recent completed trials, GA may have benefit if completed before treatment selection. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected our QOL outcome and intervention delivery for some participants.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Humanos , Femenino , Anciano , Masculino , Calidad de Vida , Evaluación Geriátrica , Método Simple Ciego , Pandemias , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Hospitalización , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) is recommended by professional organizations and recently several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits in multiple health outcomes. GAM typically leads to one or more recommendations for the older adult on how to optimize their health. However, little is known about how well recommendations are adhered to. Understanding these issues is vital to designing GAM trials and clinical programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the number of GAM recommendations made and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention in a multicentre RCT of GAM for older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel RCT conducted in eight hospitals across Canada. Each centre kept a detailed recruitment and retention log. The intervention teams documented adherence to their recommendations. Medical records were also reviewed to assess which recommendations were adhered to. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 members of the intervention teams and 11 oncology team members to assess implementation of the study and the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 350 participants who were enrolled, 173 were randomized to the intervention arm. Median number of recommendations was seven. Mean adherence to recommendations based on the GAM was 69%, but it varied by type of recommendation, ranging from 98% for laboratory tests to 28% for psychosocial/psychiatry oncology referrals. There was no difference in the number of recommendations or non-adherence to recommendations by sex, level of frailty, or functional status. Oncologists and intervention team members were satisfied with the study implementation and intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: Adherence to recommendations was variable. Adherence to laboratory investigations and further imaging were generally high but much lower for recommendations regarding psychosocial support. Further collaborative work with older adults with cancer is needed to understand how to optimize the intervention to be consistent with patient goals, priorities, and values to ensure maximal impact on health outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Fragilidad , Neoplasias , Humanos , Anciano , Evaluación Geriátrica , Canadá , Neoplasias/terapia , Satisfacción Personal , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
The rapid development of metastatic melanoma treatment options has significantly improved overall survival, but paralleled patient educational and supportive care resources have fallen behind. Particularly, the need for grassroots programs targeting environments outside urban centers has grown. Accordingly, an environmental scan of the Durham region in Ontario, Canada, showed the lack of melanoma-specific resources for outpatients. The goal of this study was to identify the needs of metastatic melanoma patients and survivors attending a large outpatient clinic in Durham, and then develop a patient-reviewed intervention plan. Needs were assessed in 5 domains through a melanoma-specific supportive care needs assessment survey. Among 75 surveyed melanoma patients and survivors, high-level needs were identified in 3 domains: psychological, health system information, and melanoma-specific information. Furthermore, domain-specific needs were heightened in specific sociodemographic groups. Based on these survey results, a multifaceted intervention plan was developed to mitigate future needs. The intervention plan was patient-reviewed in focus groups prior to implementation, refining the developed intervention plan.
RESUMEN
AIM: To describe treatment patterns among patients with stage III melanoma who underwent surgical excision in years 2011-2016, and assess outcomes among patients who subsequently received systemic adjuvant therapy versus watch-and-wait. METHODS: Chart review of 380 patients from 17 melanoma centers in North America, South America and Europe. RESULTS: Of 129 (34%) patients treated with adjuvant therapy, 85% received interferon α-2b and 56% discontinued treatment (mostly due to adverse events). Relapse-free survival was significantly longer for patients treated with adjuvant therapy versus watch-and-wait (hazard ratio = 0.63; p < 0.05). There was considerable heterogeneity in adjuvant treatment schedules and doses. Similar results were found in patients who received interferon-based adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapies with better safety/efficacy profiles will improve clinical outcomes in patients with stage III melanoma.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management is recommended for older adults with cancer referred for chemotherapy but no randomised controlled trial has been completed of this intervention in the oncology setting. TRIAL DESIGN: A two-group parallel single blind multi-centre randomised trial with a companion trial-based economic evaluation from both payer and societal perspectives with process evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 350 participants aged 70+, diagnosed with a solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma, referred for first/second line chemotherapy, who speak English/French, have an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2 will be recruited. All participants will be followed for 12 months. INTERVENTION: Geriatric assessment and management for 6 months. The control group will receive usual oncologic care. All participants will receive a monthly healthy ageing booklet for 6 months. OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical and cost-effectiveness of geriatric assessment and management in optimising outcomes compared with usual oncology care. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be allocated to one of the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. The randomisation will be stratified by centre and treatment intent (palliative vs other). OUTCOME: Quality of life. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (1) Cost-effectiveness, (2) functional status, (3) number of geriatric issues successfully addressed, (4) grades3-5 treatment toxicity, (5) healthcare use, (6) satisfaction, (7) cancer treatment plan modification and (8) overall survival. PLANNED ANALYSIS: For the primary outcome we will use a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 3, 6 and12 months). We will conduct a cost-utility analysis alongside this clinical trial. For secondary outcomes 2-4, we will use a variety of methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our study has been approved by all required REBs. We will disseminate our findings to stakeholders locally, nationally and internationally and by publishing the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03154671.