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.

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.

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.

Treatment of Older Adult Patients with Glioblastoma: Moving towards the Inclusion of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for Guiding Management.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults, and over half of patients with newly diagnosed GBM are over the age of 65. Management of glioblastoma in older patients includes maximal safe resection followed by either radiation, chemotherapy, or combined modality treatment. Despite recent advances in the treatment of older patients with GBM, survival is still only approximately 9 months compared to approximately 15 months for the general adult population, suggesting that further research is required to optimize management in the older population. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) has been shown to have a prognostic and predictive role in the management of older patients with other cancers, and domains of the CGA have demonstrated an association with outcomes in GBM in retrospective studies. Furthermore, the CGA and other geriatric assessment tools are now starting to be prospectively investigated in older GBM populations. This review aims to outline current treatment strategies for older patients with GBM, explore the rationale for inclusion of geriatric assessment in GBM management, and highlight recent data investigating its implementation into practice.

Geriatric assessment-informed treatment decision making and downstream outcomes: what are the research priorities?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Geriatric assessment (GA) can predict outcomes relevant to patients and clinicians but is not widely used. The objective of this review is to summarize the evidence supporting use of GA to facilitate decision making and improve outcomes and identify gaps that need to be addressed to further bolster the rationale for the use of GA. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently several randomized controlled studies exploring the impact of GA-directed care have been reported. Although GA-directed care has not been shown to improve survival, it can decrease moderate to severe toxicity from chemotherapy, increase the likelihood of completing planned chemotherapy and improve quality of life without adversely affecting survival. In the surgical setting, GA-directed care may decrease duration of hospitalization, but does not affect rates of re-hospitalization. SUMMARY: GA-directed care can improve patient-important outcomes compared to usual care. However, more research on whether these findings apply to other contexts and whether GA-directed care can improve other outcomes important to patients, such as function and cognition, is needed. Also more clarity about how oncologic treatments should be modified based on results of a GA are needed if oncologists are to utilize this information effectively to obtain the reported results.

A Randomized Trial of Real-Time Geriatric Assessment Reporting in Nonelectively Hospitalized Older Adults with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized older adults have significant geriatric deficits that may lead to poor outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial to investigate the effectiveness of providing clinicians with a real-time geriatric assessment (GA) report in nonelectively hospitalized older patients with cancer. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: We developed a web-based software platform for administering a modified GA (Cancer 2005;104:1998-2005) to older (>70 years) nonelectively hospitalized patients with pathologically confirmed malignancy. Patients were randomized to have their GA report provided to their treating clinicians (Intervention arm) or not provided (Control arm). RESULTS: Our study included 135 patients, median age 76 years, 52% female, 75% white, 21% black, 79% greater than high school education, 59% married, and 17% living alone. All patients had at least one GA-identified deficit, including physical function deficits (90%), cognitive impairment (22%), >5 comorbidities (28%), polypharmacy (>9 medications; 38%), weight loss ≥10% in the past 6 months (40%), anxiety (32%), or depression (30%). There was no difference between the Intervention (6%) and Control arms (9%) in the proportion of patients who were referred by their clinical team for an intervention to address a deficit (p = .53). CONCLUSION: Many older nonelectively hospitalized patients with cancer have geriatric deficits that are amenable to evidence-based interventions. Real-time GA reports provided to the care team prior to discharge did not influence provider referral for such interventions. There is a need for systems-level interventions to address deficits in this vulnerable patient population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Geriatric deficits are common in hospitalized older adults with cancer and lead to poor outcomes. Addressing modifiable deficits represents an appealing way to improve outcomes. Widespread geriatrician consultation is impractical owing to resource and personnel constraints. This work tested whether prompt delivery of a mostly self-administered, web-based geriatric assessment report to clinicians improved referral rates for evidence-informed interventions. It confirmed frequent geriatric deficits and high readmission rates in this population but found that real-time geriatric assessment reporting did not influence provider referral for evidence-informed interventions on geriatric assessment identified deficits. These findings highlight the need for systems-level intervention to improve outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of a Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management for Canadian elders with Cancer-the 5C study: a study protocol for a randomised controlled phase III trial.

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.

Healthcare satisfaction in older and younger patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Although older patients represent the most rapidly growing segment of the oncology population, clinical care is guided by very little data on patient-reported outcomes, particularly satisfaction with healthcare. Using a large cancer center registry, we sought to describe factors associated with satisfaction with care for older and younger oncology patients. METHODS: Data were collected through the University of North Carolina Health Registry Cancer Survivorship Cohort. Satisfaction was measured with the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form. Quality of life (QOL) measures included were the Promis Global short form and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General (FACT-G). RESULTS: A total of 2385 patients were included. 460 (20%) were aged 70 and above (older group). Older patients reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction in domains of time spent with doctor (scores 3.84 versus 3.73 p=0.03) and financial aspects (scores 4.03 versus 3.44 p<0.001) compared to younger patients. In multivariable analysis, higher QOL scores and higher self-reported ECOG performance status were associated with higher satisfaction scores. African American race was associated with lower satisfaction scores in all age groups. QOL was more closely correlated with satisfaction in older patients compared to younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with cancer report higher levels of satisfaction with care, in part due to lesser financial burden of care. Better QOL is associated with satisfaction with care in older patients. Use of patient-reported outcomes such as patient satisfaction may help improve patient-centered geriatric oncology care.

Geriatric Assessment of Older Adults With Cancer During Unplanned Hospitalizations: An Opportunity in Disguise.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment (GA) is an important tool for management of older cancer patients; however, GA research has been performed primarily in the outpatient setting. The primary objective of this study was to determine feasibility of GA during an unplanned hospital stay. Secondary objectives were to describe deficits found with GA, to assess whether clinicians recognized and addressed deficits, and to determine 30-day readmission rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was designed as an extension of an existing registry, "Carolina Senior: Registry for Older Patients." Inclusion criteria were age 70 and older and biopsy-proven solid tumor, myeloma, or lymphoma. Patients had to complete the GA within 7 days of nonelective admission to University of North Carolina Hospital. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were approached, and 90 (63%) consented to participation. All sections of GA had at least an 83% completion rate. Overall, 53% of patients reported problems with physical function, 63% had deficits in instrumental activities of daily living, 34% reported falls, 12% reported depression, 31% had ≥10% weight loss, and 12% had abnormalities in cognition. Physician documentation of each deficit ranged from 20% to 46%. Rates of referrals to allied health professionals were not significantly different between patients with and without deficits. The 30-day readmission rate was 29%. CONCLUSION: GA was feasible in this population. Hospitalized older cancer patients have high levels of functional and psychosocial deficits; however, clinician recognition and management of deficits were poor. The use of GA instruments to guide referrals to appropriate services is a way to potentially improve outcomes in this vulnerable population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Geriatric assessment (GA) is an important tool in the management of older cancer patients; however, its primary clinical use has been in the outpatient setting. During an unplanned hospitalization, patients are extremely frail and are most likely to benefit from GA. This study demonstrates that hospitalized older adults with cancer have high levels of functional deficits on GA. These deficits are under-recognized and poorly managed by hospital-based clinicians in a tertiary care setting. Incorporation of GA measures during a hospital stay is a way to improve outcomes in this population.