Social Justice and Equity: Why Older Adults With Cancer Belong-A Life Course Perspective.

The population of older adults with cancer in the United States is rapidly increasing, which will have a substantial impact on the oncology and public health workforces across the cancer continuum, from prevention to end of life. Unfortunately, inequities in existing social structures that cause increased psychosocial stressors have led to disparities in the incidence of cancer and the morbidity and mortality of cancer for individuals from marginalized backgrounds. It is imperative that older adults, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds, be adequately represented in all stages of cancer research to address health inequities. Continued efforts and progress toward achieving social justice and health equity require a deeper commitment to and better understanding of the impact of social determinants of health within the cancer domain. Undoubtedly, a more holistic and integrated view that extends beyond the biologic and genetic factors of health must be adopted for health entities to recognize the critical role of environmental, behavioral, and social determinants in cancer health disparities. Against this backdrop, this paper uses a life course approach to present a multifactorial framework for understanding and addressing cancer disparities in an effort to advance social justice and health equity for racially and ethnically diverse older adults.

Racial disparities in frailty and geriatric assessment impairments in older adults with cancer in the Deep South: Results from the CARE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in cancer, racial disparities in treatment outcomes persist, and their mechanisms are still not fully understood. The objective of this study was to examine racial differences in frailty and geriatric assessment impairments in an unselected cohort of older adults with newly diagnosed gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. METHODS: This study used data from the Cancer and Aging Resilience Evaluation Registry, a prospective cohort study that enrolled older adults (≥60 years) with GI malignancies who were presenting for their initial consultation. Participants who had a geriatric assessment completed before chemotherapy initiation and self-reported as either White or Black were included. Frailty was defined with a frailty index based on the deficit accumulation method. The differences in the prevalence and adjusted odds ratios for frailty and geriatric assessment impairments between Black and White participants were examined. RESULTS: Of the 710 eligible patients who were seen, 553 consented with sufficient data for analyses. The mean age at enrollment was 70 ± 7.1 years, 58% were male, and 23% were Black. Primary cancer diagnoses included colorectal cancer (32%), pancreatic cancer (27%), and hepatobiliary cancer (18%). Black participants were more likely to be frail (50.0% vs 32.7%; P < .001) and report limitations in activities of daily living (27.3% vs 14.1%; P = .001), instrumental activities of daily living (64.8% vs 47.3%; P = .002), and walking 1 block (62.5% vs 48.2%; P = .004). These associations persisted even after adjustments for age, sex, education, cancer type, cancer stage, and comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Black participants were frailer and reported more limitations in function in comparison with White participants. These findings may partially explain disparities in cancer outcomes and warrant further examination.

Life expectancy in older adults with advanced cancer: Evaluation of a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model.

OBJECTIVES: Oncologists estimate patients' prognosis to guide care. Evidence suggests oncologists tend to overestimate life expectancy, which can lead to care with questionable benefits. Information obtained from geriatric assessment may improve prognostication for older adults. In this study, we created a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model for older adults with advanced cancer and compared its performance to alternative models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile) capturing geriatric assessment and vital status up to one year for adults age ≥ 70 years with advanced cancer. Oncologists estimated life expectancy as 0-6 months, 7-12 months, and > 1 year. Three statistical models were developed: (1) a model including age, sex, cancer type, and stage (basic model), (2) basic model + Karnofsky Performance Status (≤50, 60-70, and 80+) (KPS model), and (3) basic model +16 binary indicators of geriatric assessment impairments (GA model). Cox regression was used to model one-year survival; c-indices and time-dependent c-statistics assessed model discrimination and stratified survival curves assessed model calibration. RESULTS: We included 484 participants; mean age was 75; 48% had gastrointestinal or lung cancer. Overall, 43% of patients died within one year. Oncologists classified prognosis accurately for 55% of patients, overestimated for 35%, and underestimated for 10%. C-indices were 0.61 (basic model), 0.62 (KPS model), and 0.63 (GA model). The GA model was well-calibrated. CONCLUSIONS: The GA model showed moderate discrimination for survival, similar to alternative models, but calibration was improved. Further research is needed to optimize geriatric assessment-based prognostic models for use in older adults with advanced cancer.

Using Geriatric Assessment to Guide Conversations Regarding Comorbidities Among Older Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Older patients with advanced cancer often have comorbidities that can worsen their cancer and treatment outcomes. We assessed how a geriatric assessment (GA)-guided intervention can guide conversations about comorbidities among patients, oncologists, and caregivers. METHODS: This secondary analysis arose from a nationwide, multisite cluster-randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443). Eligible patients were ≥ 70 years, had advanced cancer (solid tumors or lymphoma), and had impairment in at least one GA domain (not including polypharmacy). Oncology practices (n = 30) were randomly assigned to usual care or intervention. All patients completed a GA; in the intervention arm, a GA summary with recommendations was provided to their oncologist. Patients completed an Older Americans Resources and Services Comorbidity questionnaire at screening. The clinical encounter following GA was audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for topics related to comorbidities. Linear mixed models examined the effect of the intervention on the outcomes adjusting for practice site as a random effect. RESULTS: Patients (N = 541) were 76.6 ± 5.2 years old; 94.6% of patients had at least one comorbidity with an average of 3.2 ± 1.9. The intervention increased the average number of conversations regarding comorbidities per patient from 0.52 to 0.99 (P < .01). Moreover, there were a greater number of concerns acknowledged (0.52 v 0.32; P = .03) and there was a 2.4-times higher odds of having comorbidity concerns addressed via referral, handout, or other modes (95% CI, 1.3 to 4.3; P = .004). Most oncologists in the intervention arm (76%) discussed comorbidities in light of the treatment plan, and 41% tailored treatment plans. CONCLUSION: Providing oncologists with a GA-guided intervention enhanced communication regarding comorbidities.

Evaluation of geriatric assessment and management on the toxic effects of cancer treatment (GAP70+): a cluster-randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with advanced cancer are at a high risk for treatment toxic effects. Geriatric assessment evaluates ageing-related domains and guides management. We examined whether a geriatric assessment intervention can reduce serious toxic effects in older patients with advanced cancer who are receiving high risk treatment (eg, chemotherapy). METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, we enrolled patients aged 70 years and older with incurable solid tumours or lymphoma and at least one impaired geriatric assessment domain who were starting a new treatment regimen. 40 community oncology practice clusters across the USA were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention (oncologists received a tailored geriatric assessment summary and management recommendations) or usual care (no geriatric assessment summary or management recommendations were provided to oncologists) by means of a computer-generated randomisation table. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had any grade 3-5 toxic effect (based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4) over 3 months. Practice staff prospectively captured toxic effects. Masked oncology clinicians reviewed medical records to verify. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02054741. FINDINGS: Between July 29, 2014, and March 13, 2019, we enrolled 718 patients. Patients had a mean age of 77·2 years (SD 5·4) and 311 (43%) of 718 participants were female. The mean number of geriatric assessment domain impairments was 4·5 (SD 1·6) and was not significantly different between the study groups. More patients in intervention group compared with the usual care group were Black versus other races (40 [11%] of 349 patients vs 12 [3%] of 369 patients; p<0·0001) and had previous chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients vs 81 [22%] of 369 patients; p=0·016). A lower proportion of patients in the intervention group had grade 3-5 toxic effects (177 [51%] of 349 patients) compared with the usual care group (263 [71%] of 369 patients; relative risk [RR] 0·74 (95% CI 0·64-0·86; p=0·0001). Patients in the intervention group had fewer falls over 3 months (35 [12%] of 298 patients vs 68 [21%] of 329 patients; adjusted RR 0·58, 95% CI 0·40-0·84; p=0·0035) and had more medications discontinued (mean adjusted difference 0·14, 95% CI 0·03-0·25; p=0·015). INTERPRETATION: A geriatric assessment intervention for older patients with advanced cancer reduced serious toxic effects from cancer treatment. Geriatric assessment with management should be integrated into the clinical care of older patients with advanced cancer and ageing-related conditions. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Relationships of self-perceived age with geriatric assessment domains in older adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Older self-perceived age is associated with poor health and higher healthcare utilization in the geriatric population. We evaluated the associations of self-perceived age with geriatric assessment (GA) domain impairments in older adults with cancer. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of baseline data from a GA cluster-randomized trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile). We included patients aged ≥70 with incurable stage III/IV solid tumor or lymphoma considering or receiving treatment and had ≥1 GA domain impairment other than polypharmacy. Multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the associations of age difference between chronological and self-perceived age (categorized into "feeling younger than chronological age" vs. "feeling the same or older than their chronological age") with GA domain impairments. RESULTS: We included 533 patients; mean age was 76.6 (SD 5.2). On multivariate analyses, compared to those who felt younger than their chronological age, those who felt the same or older were more likely to have impairments in physical performance [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 5.42, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.69-17.40)], functional status (AOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73-3.07), comorbidity (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20-2.19), psychological health (AOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.85-3.73), and nutrition (AOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20-2.28). They were also more likely to screen positively for polypharmacy (AOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.30-2.65). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with cancer who felt the same or older than their chronological age were more likely to have GA domain impairments. Further studies are needed to better understand the relationships between self-perceived age, aging-related conditions, and outcomes in this population.

Communication With Older Patients With Cancer Using Geriatric Assessment: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial From the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

Importance: Older patients with cancer and their caregivers worry about the effects of cancer treatment on aging-related domains (eg, function and cognition). Quality conversations with oncologists about aging-related concerns could improve patient-centered outcomes. A geriatric assessment (GA) can capture evidence-based aging-related conditions associated with poor clinical outcomes (eg, toxic effects) for older patients with cancer. Objective: To determine whether providing a GA summary and GA-guided recommendations to oncologists can improve communication about aging-related concerns. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster-randomized clinical trial enrolled 541 participants from 31 community oncology practices within the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from October 29, 2014, to April 28, 2017. Patients were aged 70 years or older with an advanced solid malignant tumor or lymphoma who had at least 1 impaired GA domain; patients chose 1 caregiver to participate. The primary outcome was assessed on an intent-to-treat basis. Interventions: Oncology practices were randomized to receive either a tailored GA summary with recommendations for each enrolled patient (intervention) or alerts only for patients meeting criteria for depression or cognitive impairment (usual care). Main Outcomes and Measures: The predetermined primary outcome was patient satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns (modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire [score range, 0-28; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction]), measured after the first oncology visit after the GA. Secondary outcomes included the number of aging-related concerns discussed during the visit (from content analysis of audiorecordings), quality of life (measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale for patients and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey for caregivers), and caregiver satisfaction with communication about aging-related patient concerns. Results: A total of 541 eligible patients (264 women, 276 men, and 1 patient did not provide data; mean [SD] age, 76.6 [5.2] years) and 414 caregivers (310 women, 101 men, and 3 caregivers did not provide data; mean age, 66.5 [12.5] years) were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were more satisfied after the visit with communication about aging-related concerns (difference in mean score, 1.09 points; 95% CI, 0.05-2.13 points; P = .04); satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns remained higher in the intervention group over 6 months (difference in mean score, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.04-2.16; P = .04). There were more aging-related conversations in the intervention group's visits (difference, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-4.95; P < .001). Caregivers in the intervention group were more satisfied with communication after the visit (difference, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.12-1.98; P = .03). Quality of life outcomes did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Including GA in oncology clinical visits for older adults with advanced cancer improves patient-centered and caregiver-centered communication about aging-related concerns. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443.

Geriatric assessment-driven polypharmacy discussions between oncologists, older patients, and their caregivers.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy (PP) and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are common in older adults with cancer, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Approaches to identifying and addressing PP/PIM are needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ≥70 years with advanced cancer were enrolled in this cluster-randomized study. All underwent geriatric assessment (GA), and oncologists randomized to the intervention arm received GA-driven recommendations; no information was provided to oncologists at usual care sites. For patients with PP (≥5 medications or ≥1 high-risk medication), clinic visits with treating oncologists were audiorecorded and transcribed, and discussions regarding PP/PIM identified. Quality of provider response was coded as dismissed, mentioned, acknowledged, or addressed. RESULTS: Forty patient transcripts were analyzed (20 per arm). More discussions occurred in the intervention group (n = 81) versus the usual care group (n = 51). More concerns per patient were brought up in the intervention group (4.1 vs. 2.6, p = 0.07). Physician-initiated discussions were higher in the intervention group (73% vs. 49%, p = 0.006). More PP concerns were "addressed" in the intervention group (59% vs. 45%, p = 0.1). Oncology supportive care medication concerns were more often addressed in the usual care group (58% vs. 18%, p = 0.008), but medication management concerns were addressed more commonly in the intervention group (38% vs. 79%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In this secondary analysis, a GA-driven intervention increased PP discussions, particularly about total number of medications and medication management. PP/PIM concerns were more commonly addressed in the intervention group, except for the subset of conversations about supportive care medications.