Gait Speed vs. VES-13: A Pilot Study Comparing Screening Tools to Determine the Need for a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Senior Women with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Patients aged 70 years and older may be suboptimally treated with cancer therapy because of the lack of clinical trial data in this population. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment can be time consuming, and access to geriatricians is limited. This study aims to determine whether gait speed (GS) analysis is equivalent to the widely accepted Vulnerable Elders Survey 13 (VES-13) in identifying vulnerable or frail patients in need of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. METHODS: A pilot prospective cohort study was carried out at a tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada, in a radiation oncology breast follow-up clinic. GS analysis and VES-13 were completed by each patient at the same clinic visit. GS of <1 meter/second (m/s) and VES-13 score ≥3 were considered abnormal. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Kappa characteristic were calculated for GS compared with VES-13. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Twenty-nine participants aged 70 years and older with any stage of breast cancer were included. The GS was 67% sensitive and 95% specific for abnormal VES-13 scores. The GS had an 86% positive predictive value and 86% negative predictive value for abnormal scores on VES-13. Overall, the GS showed a substantial strength of agreement with the VES-13 (kappa 0.66, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The GS analysis compared very well with VES-13 scores, and this may be a reasonable alternative to VES-13 screening. This pilot data warrant further study in a larger group of patients.

Do Canadian Radiation Oncologists Consider Geriatric Assessment in the Decision-Making Process for Treatment of Patients 80 years and Older with Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer? - National Survey.

PURPOSE: Clinical judgement may not be sufficient to detect relevant problems in older cancer patients. We investigated what Geriatric Assessment tools (GA) are used by Canadian radiation oncologists (CROs) to treat non-metastatic prostate cancer patients aged 80 years and older. METHODS: A 27-item cross-sectional survey was developed with input from a multidisciplinary team and distributed electronically to Genitourinary (GU) CROs via LimeSurvey. Survey contents included: demographics, treatment choice based on components of GA, and how GA tools are used in clinic. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze multiple-choice data, with Open-ended question being coded and analyzed for emerging themes. RESULTS: 154 GU CRO's were contacted, 44 responded (29%). Active surveillance was the choice of therapy in older low risk prostate cancer patients regardless of factors used in a GA assessment (97%). Results in intermediate and high-risk older prostate cancer patients were more heterogenous. Functional status and comorbidities were the most important factor in the decision-making-process (94%, 91%). Sixty-six percent of CROs did not use any GA tools; yet 77% felt comfortable to very comfortable treating older patients. Eighty-eight percent felt there were some to very few guidelines in helping them to treat older patients. Barriers to using GA included lack of knowledge, time, support, and resources. CONCLUSIONS: GAs are not commonly utilized by CROs. Majority of CROs felt comfortable treating older patients with prostate cancer, regardless of guidelines/evidence in this population. This may have negative implications on patient care. CROs are however open to referring patients for a formal GA.

Impact of geriatric assessment on the management of older adults with head and neck cancer: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the utility of the G8 screening tool and CGA for older adults with head and neck cancer. METHODS: Patients 65years or older with a primary malignancy of the head and neck region were presented at the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. The Geriatric 8 (G8) questionnaire was administered prior. Clinicians, blinded to the G8 result, made a recommendation on appropriate treatment, including potential referral for CGA. Patients considered vulnerable (G8 score≤14) were also to be referred for CGA. Treatment outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Over 6months, 35 patients were recruited, median age 74 (range 65-93). Seventeen (49%) patients were assessed as vulnerable by the G8 score, including 7 (20%) whom the MDT referred for CGA. Seven with G8 scores≤14 did not receive a CGA. Thirty (85.7%) underwent curative intent treatment, including 6 of 7 who had CGA. Of 10 vulnerable patients who did not have CGA, 70% received curative-intent treatment. Mean length of post-operative stay was 12.2 vs. 6.5days in patients deemed vulnerable or fit by G8 scores, respectively (p=0.46); completion rate of radical radiotherapy was 75% vs. 100% in each group, respectively (p=0.13). Mean post-operative length of stay in vulnerable patients who underwent a CGA was 6.2days vs. 17.3days in those who were not referred (p=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The G8 tool identified twice the number of patients as vulnerable compared to the MDT. There was a trend towards longer postoperative stay and lower radiotherapy completion rates in patients deemed vulnerable by G8 scores.