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.

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.

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.

Geriatric assessment for older people with cancer: policy recommendations.

Most cancers occur in older people and the burden in this age group is increasing. Over the past two decades the evidence on how best to treat this population has increased rapidly. However, implementation of new best practices has been slow and needs involvement of policymakers. This perspective paper explains why older people with cancer have different needs than the wider population. An overview is given of the recommended approach for older people with cancer and its benefits on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In older patients, the geriatric assessment (GA) is the gold standard to measure level of fitness and to determine treatment tolerability. The GA, with multiple domains of physical health, functional status, psychological health and socio-environmental factors, prevents initiation of inappropriate oncologic treatment and recommends geriatric interventions to optimize the patient's general health and thus resilience for receiving treatments. Multiple studies have proven its benefits such as reduced toxicity, better quality of life, better patient-centred communication and lower healthcare use. Although GA might require investment of time and resources, this is relatively small compared to the improved outcomes, possible cost-savings and compared to the large cost of oncologic treatments as a whole.

Predictors and effects of toxicity experienced by older adults with cancer receiving systemic therapy in a randomized clinical trial of geriatric assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults represent a large segment of the oncology population, however, they remain underrepresented in clinical research. Treatment of older adults is often extrapolated using data from younger and fitter patients, which may not be appropriate. Furthermore the implications of toxicity from treatment can be greater for this population. Predicting toxicity from treatment and its effect on quality of life and functional status for older adults therefore is important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from a clinical trial of geriatric assessment and management for Canadian elders with cancer (5C study). We assessed whether the baseline Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) toxicity score, G8 score, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance predicted grade 3-5 toxicity using logistic regression and pattern mixture models. We also assessed the impact of toxicity on quality of life and functional decline. Patients were followed for six months. RESULTS: Three hundred sixteen patients were included. Mean age was 76 years old and 40% of patients were female. One hundred nineteen patients (38%) experienced at least one grade 3-5 toxicity. Neither the CARG toxicity score, G8, or ECOG were predictive of grade 3-5 toxicity. Patients who experienced grade 3-5 toxicity were more likely to have functional impairments over time (odds ratio 3.71, p = 0.03). However, they maintained their quality of life. DISCUSSION: In this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of geriatric assessment and management we did not find any predictors of grade 3-5 toxicity. Patients who did experience toxicity were more likely to report functional decline over time. Older adults who do experience treatment related toxicity may benefit from increased supports. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT0315467.

Practical Assessment and Management of Vulnerabilities in Older Patients Receiving Systemic Cancer Therapy: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update the ASCO guideline (2018) on the practical assessment and management of age-associated vulnerabilities in older patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses from January 2016 to December 2022. RESULTS: A total of 26 publications met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the update. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Expert Panel reiterates its overarching recommendation from the prior guideline that geriatric assessment (GA), including all essential domains, should be used to identify vulnerabilities or impairments that are not routinely captured in oncology assessments for all patients over 65 years old with cancer. Based on recently published RCTs demonstrating significantly improved clinical outcomes, all older adults with cancer (65+ years old) receiving systemic therapy with GA-identified deficits should have GA-guided management (GAM) included in their care plan. GAM includes using GA findings to inform cancer treatment decision-making as well as to address impairments through appropriate interventions, counseling, and/or referrals. A GA should include high priority aging-related domains known to be associated with outcomes in older adults with cancer: physical and cognitive function, emotional health, comorbid conditions, polypharmacy, nutrition, and social support. Clinical adaptation of the GA based on patient population, resources, and time is appropriate.The Panel recommends the Practical Geriatric Assessment as one option for this purpose (https://old-prod.asco.org/sites/new-www.asco.org/files/content-files/practice-patients/documents/2023-PGA-Final.pdf; https://youtu.be/jnaQIjOz2Dw; https://youtu.be/nZXtwaGh0Z0).Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Implementing geriatric assessment and management for older Canadians with cancer: Adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention, results of the 5C study.

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.

Impact of Geriatric Assessment and Management on Quality of Life, Unplanned Hospitalizations, Toxicity, and Survival for Older Adults With Cancer: The Randomized 5C Trial.

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.

The development of an electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive health assessment for my plan (CHAMP).

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.

The impact of pre-treatment muscle strength and physical performance on treatment modification in older adults with cancer following comprehensive geriatric assessment.

BACKGROUND: Grip strength (GS) and the short physical performance battery (SPPB) have been shown to predict clinical outcomes in older adults with cancer. However, whether pre-treatment GS and SPPB impact treatment decisions following comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is poorly understood. Our objective was to assess the impact of low GS and/or SPPB on treatment modification to initially proposed treatment plans in older adults with cancer following CGA. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of older adults who had undergone CGA before receiving cancer treatment. Data were retrieved from a prospective database in an academic cancer centre and medical records. Treatment modification following CGA was defined as reduced treatment intensity or transition from active treatment to supportive care. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the impact of pre-treatment GS and SPPB on treatment modification following CGA. RESULTS: In total, 515 older adults (mean age: 80.7y) who had undergone CGA prior to cancer treatment were included. Low muscle strength and/or physical performance was observed in 66.4% of participants. Treatment was modified in 49.5% of the cohort following CGA. Low GS and/or SPPB combined was predictive of treatment modification (OR = 1.77, 95%CI = 1.07-2.90, P = 0.025) in multivariable analysis. Additional predictors of treatment modification included palliative treatment intent, comorbidities and malnutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Low GS and/or SPPB combined prior to cancer treatment predicts treatment modification in older adults with cancer and may be useful in treatment decision-making. Management of poor muscle strength and physical performance should be offered to optimize patient care and potentially improve treatment outcomes.

Frailty assessment tools for use by surgeons when evaluating older adults prior to surgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite growing evidence, uncertainty persists about which frailty assessment tools are best suited for routine perioperative care. We aim to understand which frailty assessment tools perform well and are feasible to implement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a registered protocol following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA), we will conduct a scoping review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Guide for Scoping Reviews and reported using PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations. We will develop a comprehensive search strategy with information specialists using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist, and implement this across relevant databases from 2005 to 13 October 2021 and updated prior to final review publication. We will include all studies evaluating a frailty assessment tool preoperatively in patients 65 years or older undergoing intracavitary, non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude tools not assessed in clinical practice, or using laboratory or radiologic values alone. After pilot testing, two reviewers will independently assess information sources for eligibility first by titles and abstracts, then by full-text review. Two reviewers will independently chart data from included full texts using a piloted standardised electronic data charting. In this scoping review process, we will (1) index frailty assessment tools evaluated in the preoperative clinical setting; (2) describe the level of investigation supporting each tool; (3) describe useability of each tool and (4) describe direct comparisons between tools. The results will inform ready application of frailty assessment tools in routine clinical practice by surgeons and other perioperative clinicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethic approval is not required for this secondary data analysis. This scoping review will be published in a peer-review journal. Results will be used to inform an ongoing implementation study focused on geriatric surgery to overcome the current lack of uptake of older adult-oriented care recommendations and ensure broad impact of research findings.

The Development of Geriatric Assessment and Intervention Guidelines for an Online Geriatric Assessment Tool: A Canadian Modified Delphi Panel Study.

BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines available for what assessment tools to use in a patient's self-completed online geriatric assessment (GA) with management recommendations. Therefore, we used a modified Delphi approach with Canadian expert clinicians to develop a consensus online GA plus recommendations tool. METHODS: The panel consisted of experts in geriatrics, oncology, nursing, and pharmacy. Experts were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of assessments and interventions to be included in an online GA for patients. The items included in the first round were based on guidelines for in-person GA and literature review. The first two rounds were conducted using an online survey. A virtual 2 h meeting was held to discuss the items where no consensus was reached and then voted on in the final round. RESULTS: 34 experts were invited, and 32 agreed to participate. In round 1, there were 85 items; in round 2, 50 items; and in round 3, 25 items. The final tool consists of fall history, assistive device use, weight loss, medication review, need help taking medication, social supports, depressive symptoms, self-reported vision and hearing, and current smoking status and alcohol use. CONCLUSION: This first multidisciplinary consensus on online GA will benefit research and clinical care for older adults with cancer.

Economic Evaluation of a Geriatric Oncology Clinic.

Geriatric assessment (GA) is supported by recent trials and guidelines yet rarely implemented due to a lack of resources. We performed an economic evaluation of a geriatric oncology clinic. Pre-GA proposed treatments and post-GA actual treatments were obtained from a detailed chart review of patients seen at a single academic centre. GA-based costs for investigations and referrals were calculated. Unit costs were obtained for surgical, radiation, systemic therapy, laboratory, imaging, physician, nursing, and allied health care (all in 2019 Canadian dollars). A six-month time horizon and government payer perspective were used. Consecutive patients aged 65 years or older (n = 152, mean age 82 y) and referred in the pre-treatment setting between July 2016 and June 2018 were included. Treatment plans were modified for 51% of patients. Costs associated with planned treatment were CAD 3,655,015. Costs associated with GA and related interventions were CAD 95,798. Final treatment costs were CAD 2,436,379. Net savings associated with the clinic were CAD 1,122,837, or CAD 7387 per patient seen. Findings were robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. Combined with mounting trial data demonstrating the clinical benefits of GA, our data can inform a strong business case for geriatric oncology clinics in health care environments similar to ours, but additional studies in diverse health care settings are warranted.

A cost-utility analysis of apalutamide for metastatic castrationsensitive prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Earlier application of oral androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has established improvements in overall survival, as compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Recently, the use of apalutamide plus ADT has demonstrated improvement in mCSPC-related mortality vs. ADT alone, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, the cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic option remains unknown. METHODS: We used a state-transition model with probabilistic analysis to compare apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, for mCSPC patients over a time horizon of 20 years. Primary outcomes included expected life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), lifetime cost (2020 Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Parameter and model uncertainties were assessed through scenario analyses. Health outcomes and cost were discounted at 1.5%, as per Canadian guidelines. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, expected LY for ADT and apalutamide plus ADT were 4.11 and 5.56, respectively (incremental LY 1.45). Expected QALYs were 3.51 for ADT and 4.84 for apalutamide plus ADT (incremental QALYs 1.33); expected lifetime cost was $36 582 and $255 633, respectively (incremental cost $219 051). ICER for apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, was $164 700/QALY. Through scenario analysis, price reductions ≥50% were required for apalutamide in combination with ADT to be considered cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Apalutamide plus ADT is unlikely to be cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare perspective unless there are substantial reductions in the price of apalutamide treatment.