Factors associated with the evaluation of geriatric assessment (GA) domains by oncology specialists in Mexico.

The use of geriatric assessment (GA) by oncology specialists in Mexico is low. We aimed to explore factors associated with the evaluation of individual GA domains by Mexican oncology specialists. We performed an exploratory analysis of a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study consisting of an online cross-sectional survey of Mexican oncology specialists and follow-up interviews on the use of GA in cancer care. For each GA domain, we performed multivariable logistic regression analyses with the frequency of evaluation of the domains as the dependent variable (dichotomised as never/rarely/sometimes versus most of the time/always). A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Qualitative data from the interviews were analysed inductively. Of 196 respondents, 62% were male, 50% were surgical oncologists, 51% took care of >10 patients per day and 61.7% had access to a geriatrician. Self-perceived confidence in managing common geriatric conditions was associated with the evaluation of specific GA domains. For instance, self-perceived confidence in managing dementia (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.42-5.51, p = 0.008) was associated with cognition evaluation, while for evaluation of falls, self-perceived confidence in evaluation of falls (OR 6.31; 95% CI 3.19-12.46, p < 0.001) was significantly associated. Follow-up interviews showed quality and appropriateness of evaluations may not be ideal: in many cases, physicians do not use guideline-recommended tools. For example, evaluation of cognition is commonly performed through non-validated methods which may miss the detection of patients with an impairment in this domain, partly due to limitations in knowledge and time to use recommended tools. In conclusion, self-perceived confidence in evaluating and managing common situations in older adults was associated with the evaluation of GA domains as part of everyday practice in a sample of oncology specialists in Mexico. This analysis supports the use of educational interventions to boost knowledge and confidence regarding the proper use of validated GA tools among oncology specialists.

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.

Effects of a Geriatric Assessment Intervention on Patient-Reported Symptomatic Toxicity in Older Adults With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Providing a geriatric assessment (GA) summary with management recommendations to oncologists reduces clinician-rated toxicity in older patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment. This secondary analysis of a national cluster randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02054741) aims to assess the effects of a GA intervention on symptomatic toxicity measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, the study enrolled patients age ≥ 70 years, with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma and ≥ 1 GA domain impairment, who were initiating a regimen with high prevalence of toxicity. Patients completed PRO-CTCAEs, including the severity of 24 symptoms (11 classified as core symptoms) at enrollment, 4-6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Symptoms were scored as grade ≥ 2 (at least moderate) and grade ≥ 3 (severe/very severe). Symptomatic toxicity was determined by an increase in severity during treatment. A generalized estimating equation model was used to assess the effects of the GA intervention on symptomatic toxicity. RESULTS: Mean age was 77 years (range, 70-96 years), 43% were female, and 88% were White, 59% had GI or lung cancers, and 27% received prior chemotherapy. In 706 patients who provided PRO-CTCAEs at baseline, 86.1% reported at least one moderate symptom and 49.7% reported severe/very severe symptoms at regimen initiation. In 623 patients with follow-up PRO-CTCAE data, compared with usual care, fewer patients in the GA intervention arm reported grade ≥ 2 symptomatic toxicity (overall: 88.9% v 94.8%, P = .035; core symptoms: 83.4% v 91.7%, P = .001). The results for grade ≥ 3 toxicity were comparable but not significant (P > .05). CONCLUSION: In the presence of a high baseline symptom burden, a GA intervention for older patients with advanced cancer reduces patient-reported symptomatic toxicity.

Communication About Fall Risk in Community Oncology Practice: The Role of Geriatric Assessment.

PURPOSE: Falls are a modifiable source of morbidity for older adults with cancer, yet are underassessed in oncology practice. In this secondary analysis of a nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial, we examined characteristics associated with patient-oncologist conversations about falls, and whether oncologist knowledge of geriatric assessment (GA) resulted in more conversations. METHODS: Eligible patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443) were age ≥ 70 years, had stage III/IV solid tumor or lymphoma, were being treated with noncurative treatment intent, and ≥ 1 GA domain impairment. Patients in both arms underwent GA. At practices randomly assigned to the intervention arm, oncologists were provided a GA summary with management recommendations. In both arms, patients had one clinical encounter audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded to categorize whether a conversation about falls occurred. Generalized linear mixed models adjusted for arm, practice site, and other important covariates were used to generate proportions and odds ratios (ORs) from the full sample. RESULTS: Of 541 patients (intervention N = 293 and usual care N = 248, mean age: 77 years, standard deviation: 5.3), 528 had evaluable audio recordings. More patients had conversations about falls in the intervention versus usual care arm (61.3% v 10.3%, P < .001). Controlling for the intervention and practice site, history of falls (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.6; P = .005) and impaired physical performance (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.7 to 12.8; P = .002) were significantly associated with patient-oncologist conversations about falls. CONCLUSION: GA intervention increased conversations about falls. History of falls and impaired physical performance were associated with patient-oncologist conversations about falls in community oncology practice.

Survive and thrive: Personal stories of persistence and resilience in aging research.

An academic career in aging research is filled with the incredible highs of important discoveries that improve the lives of older adults and repeated lows when papers and grants are rejected or studies are negative. To normalize the experience of setbacks and failures in aging research, we invited three senior investigators to share their journeys of persistence and resilience as they have navigated their research careers. This career development symposium was presented at the 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Geriatrics Society, which was held virtually. We aimed to connect researchers in aging, especially trainees and junior investigators, through personal stories of persistence and shared strategies to build resilience and respond to setbacks with a growth mindset.

A Geriatric Assessment Intervention to Reduce Treatment Toxicity Among Older Adults With Advanced Lung Cancer: A Subgroup Analysis From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: More older adults die from lung cancer worldwide than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers combined. Current lung cancer treatments may prolong life, but can also cause considerable treatment-related toxicity. Objective: This study is a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial which evaluated whether providing a geriatric assessment (GA) summary and GA-guided management recommendations can improve grade 3-5 toxicity among older adults with advanced lung cancer. Methods: We analyzed participants aged ≥70 years(y) with stage III & IV (advanced) lung cancer and ≥1 GA domain impairment starting a new cancer treatment with high-risk of toxicity within the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program. Community practices were randomized to the intervention arm (oncologists received GA summary & recommendations) versus usual care (UC: no summary or recommendations given). The primary outcome was grade 3-5 toxicity through 3 months post-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included 6-month (mo) and 1-year overall survival (OS), treatment modifications, and unplanned hospitalizations. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear mixed and Cox proportional hazards models with practice site as a random effect. Trial Registration: NCT02054741. Results & Conclusion: Among 180 participants with advanced lung cancer, the mean age was 76.3y (SD 5.1), 39.4% were female and 82.2% had stage IV disease. The proportion of patients who experienced grade 3-5 toxicity was significantly lower in the intervention arm vs UC (53.1% vs 71.6%, P=0.01). More participants in the intervention arm received lower intensity treatment at cycle 1 (56.3% vs 35.3%; P<0.01). Even with a cycle 1 dose reduction, OS at 6mo and 1 year was not significantly different (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] intervention vs. UC: 6mo HR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.52-1.57, P=0.72; 1 year HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.58-1.36, P=0.57). Frequent toxicity checks, providing education and counseling materials, and initiating direct communication with the patient's primary care physician were among the most common GA-guided management recommendations. Providing a GA summary and management recommendations can significantly improve tolerability of cancer treatment among older adults with advanced lung cancer.

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.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) and its treatment: an NIH Collaboratory study of claims data.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a disabling complication of many chemotherapies. We investigated the feasibility of using health plan claims and administrative data to identify CIPN occurrence by comparing patients who received neurotoxic and non-neurotoxic chemotherapies. METHODS: The sample included over 53,000,000 patients from two regional and one national insurer in the USA (> 400,000 exposed to chemotherapy). Peripheral neuropathy was identified using a broad definition (definition 1) and a specific definition (i.e., drug-induced polyneuropathy code) (definition 2). RESULTS: CIPN incidence as measured by definition 1 within 6 months of chemotherapy initiation was 18.1% and 6.2% for patients who received neurotoxic and non-neurotoxic chemotherapy, respectively (relative risk neurotoxic vs. non-neurotoxic (RR), 2.93 (95% CI, 2.87-2.98)). For definition 2, these incidences were 3.6% and 0.1% (RR, 25.2 (95% CI, 22.8-27.8)). The incidences of new analgesic prescriptions for neurotoxic and non-neurotoxic groups were as follows: gabapentin, 7.1%/1.7%; pregabalin, 0.69%/0.31%; and duloxetine, 0.78%/0.76%. The incidence of CIPN as defined by definitions 1 and 2 was low compared with that of published research studies, but the relative risk of CIPN among patients who received neurotoxic chemotherapies compared with those who received non-neurotoxic chemotherapies was high using definition 2. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that as used currently by clinicians, administrative codes likely underestimate CIPN incidence. Thus, studies using administrative data to estimate CIPN incidence are not currently feasible. However, the drug-induced polyneuropathy code is a specific indicator of CIPN in administrative data and may be useful for investigating predictors or potentially preventive therapies of CIPN.

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.

Communication about geriatric assessment domains in advanced cancer settings: "Missed opportunities".

OBJECTIVES: Older patients with advanced cancer often have age-related health issues (e.g., memory impairment) that influence their cancer treatment decisions. Communication about these age-related concerns can potentially lead to further assessment and subsequent clinical interventions to improve treatment decision-making and patients' quality of life. Yet, little is known about the communication of age-related concerns between oncologists, patients, and caregivers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of data from the Values and Options in Cancer Care (VOICE) study. Audio-recorded and transcribed outpatient clinical oncology encounters with 37 patients with advanced cancer ≥60 years of age were content-analyzed. Two trained coders used a structured coding scheme based on pre-specified geriatric assessment (GA) domains to examine the transcripts for the frequency and quality of communication about age-related concerns. Atlas.ti version 6 was used for all analyses. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 66 years (range = 60-90 years); patients were mostly female (26/37), married (22/37), and White (36/37). Out of 37 audio-recorded visits, 31 had at least one mention of an age-related concern with a total of 70 mentions. Oncologists initiated communication about age-related concerns half of the time (53%). When age-related concerns were mentioned, half of the time (50%) the oncologist did not implement further evidence-based interventions to address the age-related concern (e.g., conduct a cognitive screen for a memory concern). CONCLUSION: Interventions are needed to improve the frequency and quality of the communication about age-related concerns to improve the care of older adults with cancer.

Novel mHealth App to Deliver Geriatric Assessment-Driven Interventions for Older Adults With Cancer: Pilot Feasibility and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with cancer are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes. A geriatric assessment (GA) is a compilation of reliable and validated tools to assess domains that are predictors of morbidity and mortality, and it can be used to guide interventions. However, the implementation of GA and GA-driven interventions is low due to resource and time limitations. GA-driven interventions delivered through a mobile app may support the complex needs of older patients with cancer and their caregivers. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and usability of a novel app (TouchStream) and to identify barriers to its use. As an exploratory aim, we gathered preliminary data on symptom burden, health care utilization, and satisfaction. METHODS: In a single-site pilot study, we included patients aged ≥65 years undergoing treatment for systemic cancer and their caregivers. TouchStream consists of a mobile app and a Web portal. Patients underwent a GA at baseline with the study team (on paper), and the results were used to guide interventions delivered through the app. A tablet preloaded with the app was provided for use at home for 4 weeks. Feasibility metrics included usability (system usability scale of >68 is considered above average), recruitment, retention (number of subjects consented who completed postintervention assessments), and percentage of days subjects used the app. For the last 8 patients, we assessed their symptom burden (severity and interference with 17-items scored from 0-10 where a higher score indicates worse symptoms) using a clinical symptom inventory, health care utilization from the electronic medical records, and satisfaction (6 items scored on a 5-point Likert Scale for both patients and caregivers where a higher score indicates higher satisfaction) using a modified satisfaction survey. Barriers to use were elicited through interviews. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients (mean age 76.8, range 68-87) and 13 caregivers (mean age 69.8, range 38-81) completed the baseline assessment. Recruitment and retention rates were 67% and 80%, respectively. The mean SUS score was 74.0 for patients and 72.2 for caregivers. Mean percentage of days the TouchStream app was used was 78.7%. Mean symptom severity and interference scores were 1.6 and 2.8 at preintervention, and 0.9 and 1.5 at postintervention, respectively. There was a total of 27 clinic calls during the intervention period and 15 during the postintervention period (week 5-8). One patient was hospitalized during the intervention period (week 1-4) and two patients during the postintervention period (week 5-8). Mean satisfaction scores of patients and caregivers with the mobile app were 20.4 and 23.4, respectively. Barriers fell into 3 themes: general experience, design, and functionality. CONCLUSIONS: TouchStream is feasible and usable for older patients on cancer treatment and their caregivers. Future studies should evaluate the effects of the TouchStream on symptoms and health care utilization in a randomized fashion.