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.

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.

Understanding transitional care programmes for older adults who experience delayed discharge: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Many hospitalised older adults experience delayed discharges due to increased postacute health and social support needs. Transitional care programmes (TCPs) provide short-term care to these patients to prepare them for transfer to nursing homes or back to the community with supports. There are knowledge gaps related to the development, implementation and evaluation of TCPs. The aims of this scoping review (ScR) are to identify the characteristics of older patients served by TCPs; criteria for transfer, components and services provided by TCPs; and outcomes used to evaluate TCPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study involves six-step ScR and is informed by a collaborative/participatory approach whereby stakeholders engage in the development of the research questions, identification of literature, data abstraction and synthesis; and participation in consultation workshop. The search for scientific literature will be done in the Medline, PsychINFO, Emcare and CINAHL databases; as well, policies and reports that examined models of transitional care and the outcomes used to evaluate them will be reviewed. Records will be selected if they involve community dwelling older adults aged 65 years or older, or indigenous persons 45 years or older; and presented in English, French, Dutch and German languages. Records will be screened, reviewed and abstracted by two independent reviewers. Extracted data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and a narrative analysis, and organised according to Donabedian's model of structure (characteristics of older adults experiencing delayed discharge and served by TCPs), process (TCP components and services) and outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This ScR does not require ethics approval. Dissemination activities include integrated knowledge translation (KT) (consultation with stakeholders throughout the study) and end-of-grant KT strategies (presentations at national and international conferences; and publication in peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal).

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.

Health status, emergency department visits, and oncologists' feedback: An analysis of secondary endpoints from a randomized phase II geriatric assessment trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric Assessment (GA) can help uncover previously unknown health issues and recommend tailored interventions to optimize outcomes; however, no completed randomized trial has examined the impact of GA on utility-based health status, healthcare use, and oncologists' opinions about GA. We examined these secondary outcomes of a randomized phase II trial. METHODS: A planned analysis of secondary outcomes of a two-group parallel single-blind randomized phase II trial of GA (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02222259) recruited patients ≥ age 70, diagnosed with stage II-IV breast/gastrointestinal/genitourinary cancer within six weeks of beginning chemotherapy at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Descriptive analyses using intent-to-treat were conducted for health status (EuroQol EQ-5D-3L) and healthcare utilization (patient self-report). Oncologist opinions were captured via open-ended interviews and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients who met the inclusion criteria were approached; 61 of them consented (64%). For health status, at all time-points, there were no significant differences between the two groups. The number of emergency department and family physician visits was low overall; there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at any time point. All interviewed oncologists (eight of fourteen invited) were satisfied with the intervention, but wanted more straightforward recommendations and earlier GA results. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in terms of relationships between GA and utility-based health status or GA and healthcare use. Underreporting of healthcare use was possible. Oncologists welcome GA feedback and prefer to receive it in pre-treatment decision context. Larger trials with earlier GA are warranted.

The assessment, management, and reporting of falls, and the impact of falls on cancer treatment in community-dwelling older patients receiving cancer treatment: Results from a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Falls are major health issues among older adults and even more so in those with cancer due to cancer and its treatment. Delays in cancer treatment caused by fall injuries may have significant implications on disease trajectory and patient outcomes. However, it is not known how falls impact cancer treatment in this population. METHODS: We conducted a convergent-parallel mixed-methods study at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, to examine how falls impact cancer treatment in community-dwelling cancer patients aged ≥ 65, patients' fall reporting, and how falls were assessed and managed in oncology clinics. Data were collected by self-reported survey, chart review, and open-ended interviews. RESULTS: One hundred older adults and fourteen oncologists participated. Falls were not commonly reported by patients to their oncologists (72 of 168 falls [43%] reported to researchers by patients were also reported to oncologists). One of fourteen oncologists routinely assessed falls. In 7% of all 72 reported falls, cancer treatment was impacted (e.g. treatment delay/cessation, dose reduction). Fifty-seven patients perceived their fall as minor incident not worth mentioning (amounted to a total of 72 falls not reported). When a participant reported their fall to the oncologist, actions were taken to assess and manage the fall. Oncologists indicated that the majority of patients were not forthcoming in reporting falls. CONCLUSION: One in twenty who fall appear to lead to change in cancer management. However, falls were not commonly reported by patients nor prioritized by oncologists. Incorporating routine fall assessment in oncology clinic appointments may help identify those at risk for falls so that timely interventions can be triggered.

Geriatric oncology screening tools for CGA-based interventions: results from a phase II study of geriatric assessment and management for older adults with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Screening tools in geriatric oncology have traditionally been studied for their ability to identify patients who have abnormal domains on a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). However, an alternative outcome of identifying patients who would receive CGA-based interventions could improve selection of patients whose management will be altered by a CGA. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of three geriatric oncology screening tools for their ability to predict for CGA-based interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: G8, Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) and a modified frailty phenotype (mFP) screening tools were collected prospectively for patients enrolled in a phase II trial of geriatric evaluation and management. Interventions were defined as a new clinical diagnosis, change in management of a comorbidity, or referral to an allied health professional. Performance characteristics were calculated for each screening tool based on the outcomes of ≥2 abnormal CGA-domains and ≥1 CGA-based interventions. RESULTS: Discordance between the outcomes was seen in 31.9% of patients. Using the outcome of ≥2 abnormal CGA-domains, the G8 was most sensitive at 0.73 while VES-13 and mFP were both 1.0 specific. Using the outcome of CGA-based interventions the most sensitive tool was still the G8 at 0.64 and the most specific was the mFP at 0.80. DISCUSSION: All screening tests' performance characteristics for the G8, VES-13 and mFP were lower for the outcome of CGA-based interventions than for the traditional outcome of abnormal CGA-domains. Significant discordance between the outcomes highlights the difficulty with trying to predict which patients will truly benefit from a CGA.

A randomized phase II trial of geriatric assessment and management for older cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) can identify current health issues and recommend interventions to optimize well-being of older adults, but no randomized trial has yet been completed in oncology. Therefore, a randomized phase 2 trial was conducted. METHODS: A two-group parallel single-blinded randomized phase II trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02222259) enrolled patients aged ≥70 years, diagnosed with stage 2-4 gastrointestinal, genitourinary, or breast cancer within 6 weeks of commencing chemotherapy at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The coprimary feasibility outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients enrolled and retained. The coprimary clinical outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (EORTC QLQ C30) and modification of cancer treatment. Descriptive and regression analyses using intent-to-treat analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-one persons (64%) agreed to participate (31 allocated to intervention arm and 30 to control group). In the control group, more participants died and refused follow-up. The benefit of intervention over control on QOL at 3 months was greater for those who survived 6 months (difference 9.28; 95% CI -10.35 to 28.91) versus those who survived only 3 months (difference 6.55; 95% CI -9.63 to 22.73). CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed that it was feasible to recruit and retain older adults for a GAM study. Those who survived at least 6 months seemed to receive a greater QOL benefit than those who died or withdrew.

Identifying and understanding the health and social care needs of older adults with multiple chronic conditions and their caregivers: a protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: People are living longer; however, they are not necessarily experiencing good health and well-being as they age. Many older adults live with multiple chronic conditions (MCC), and complex health issues, which adversely affect their day-to-day functioning and overall quality of life. As a result, they frequently rely on the support of friend and/or family caregivers. Caregivers of older adults with MCC often face challenges to their own well-being and also require support. Currently, not enough is known about the health and social care needs of older adults with MCC and the needs of their caregivers or how best to identify and meet these needs. This study will examine and synthesise the literature on the needs of older adults with MCC and those of their caregivers, and identify gaps in evidence and directions for further research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature using the updated Arksey and O'Malley framework. The literature will be identified using a multidatabase and grey literature search strategy developed by a health sciences librarian. Papers, reports and other materials addressing the health and social care needs of older adults and their friend/family caregivers will be included. Search results will be screened, independently, by two reviewers, and data will be abstracted from included literature and charted in duplicate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethics approval. We anticipate that study findings will inform novel strategies for identifying and ascertaining the health and social care needs of older adults living with MCC and those of their caregivers. Working with knowledge-user members of our team, we will prepare materials and presentations to disseminate findings to relevant stakeholder and end-user groups at local, national and international levels. We will also publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

Interventions to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review of the literature and international policies.

Background: frailty impacts older adults' ability to recover from an acute illness, injuries and other stresses. Currently, a systematic synthesis of available interventions to prevent or reduce frailty does not exist. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of interventions and international policies designed to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults. Methods and analysis: we conducted a scoping review using the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. We systematically searched articles and grey literature to identify interventions and policies that aimed to prevent or reduce the level of frailty. Results: fourteen studies were included: 12 randomised controlled trials and 2 cohort studies (mean number of participants 260 (range 51-610)), with most research conducted in USA and Japan. The study quality was moderate to good. The interventions included physical activity; physical activity combined with nutrition; physical activity plus nutrition plus memory training; home modifications; prehabilitation (physical therapy plus exercise plus home modifications) and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Our review showed that the interventions that significantly reduced the number of frailty markers present or the prevalence of frailty included the physical activity interventions (all types and combinations), and prehabilitation. The CGA studies had mixed findings. Conclusion: nine of the 14 studies reported that the intervention reduced the level of frailty. The results need to be interpreted with caution, as only 14 studies using 6 different definitions of frailty were retained. Future research could combine interventions targeting more frailty markers including cognitive or psychosocial well-being.

Interventions to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a protocol for a scoping review of the literature and international policies.

INTRODUCTION: With ageing comes increased vulnerability such that older adults' ability to recover from acute illnesses, fall-related injuries and other stresses related to the physical ageing processes declines. This increased vulnerability, also known as frailty, is common in older adults and associated with increased healthcare service use and adverse health outcomes. Currently, there is no overview of available interventions to prevent or reduce the level of frailty (as defined by study's authors) which will help healthcare providers in community settings caring for older adults. We will address this gap by reviewing interventions and international policies that are designed to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review using the updated guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley to systematically search the peer-reviewed journal articles to identify interventions that aimed to prevent or reduce the level of frailty. We will search grey literature for international policies. The 6-stage scoping review model involves: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results and (6) consulting with key stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our scoping review will use robust methodology to search for available interventions focused on preventing or reducing the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults. We will consult with stakeholders to find out whether they find the frailty interventions/policies useful and to identify the barriers and facilitators to their implementation in Canada. We will disseminate our findings to relevant stakeholders at local, national and international levels by presenting at relevant meetings and publishing the findings. Our review will identify gaps in research and provide healthcare providers and policymakers with an overview of interventions that can be implemented to prevent or postpone frailty.

A systematic review of factors influencing older adults' decision to accept or decline cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a disease that affects mostly older adults. Older adults often have other chronic health conditions in addition to cancer and may have different health priorities, both of which can impact cancer treatment decision-making. However, no systematic review of factors that influence an older cancer patient's decision to accept or decline cancer treatment has been conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of the literature published between inception of the databases and February 2013. Dutch, English, French or German articles reporting on qualitative studies, cross-sectional, longitudinal observational or intervention studies describing factors why older adults accepted or declined cancer treatment examining actual treatment decisions were included. Ten databases were used. Two independent reviewers reviewed manuscripts and performed data abstraction using a standardized form and the quality of studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Of 17,343 abstracts reviewed, a total of 38 studies were included. The majority focused on breast and prostate cancer treatment decisions and most studies used a qualitative design. Important factors for accepting treatment were convenience and success rate of treatment, seeing necessity of treatment, trust in the physician and following the physician's recommendation. Factors important for declining cancer treatment included concerns about the discomfort of the treatments, fear of side effects and transportation difficulties. CONCLUSION: Although the reasons why older adults with cancer accepted or declined treatment varied considerably, the most consistent determinant was physician recommendation. Further studies using large, representative samples and exploring decision-making incorporating health literacy and comorbidity are needed.

How to implement a geriatric assessment in your clinical practice.

Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. Other health conditions, changes in functional status, and use of multiple medications change the risks and benefits of cancer treatment for older adults. Several international organizations, such as the International Society of Geriatric Oncology, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, recommend the conduct of a geriatric assessment (GA) for older adults with cancer to help select the most appropriate treatment and identify any underlying undetected medical, functional, and psychosocial issues that can interfere with treatment. The aim of this review is to describe what a GA is and how to implement it in daily clinical practice for older adults with cancer in the oncology setting. We provide an overview of commonly used tools. Key considerations in performing the GA include the resources available (staff, space, and time), patient population (who will be assessed), what GA tools to use, and clinical follow-up (who will be responsible for using the GA results for developing care plans and who will provide follow-up care). Important challenges in implementing GA in clinical practice include not having easy and timely access to geriatric expertise, patient burden of the additional hospital visits, and establishing collaboration between the GA team and oncologists regarding expectations of the population referred for GA and expected outcomes of the GA. Finally, we provide some possible interventions for problems identified during the GA.

Usefulness of frailty markers in the assessment of the health and functional status of older cancer patients referred for chemotherapy: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Older cancer patients seen in an oncology clinic seem to be healthier and less disabled than traditional geriatric patients. Choosing the most sensitive tools to assess their health status is a major issue. This cross-sectional study explores the usefulness of frailty markers in detecting vulnerability in older cancer patients. METHODS: The study included cancer patients >or=70 years old referred to an oncology clinic for chemotherapy. Information on comorbidities, disability in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and activities of daily living (ADL), and seven frailty markers (nutrition, mobility, strength, energy, physical activity, mood, and cognition) was collected. Patients were classified into four hierarchical groups: 1- No frailty markers, IADL, or ADL disability; 2- Presence of frailty markers without IADL or ADL disability; 3- IADL disability without ADL disability; 4- ADL disability. RESULTS: Among the 50 patients assessed, 6 (12.0%) were classified into Group 1, 21 (42.0%) into Group 2, 15 (30.0%) into Group 3, and 8 (16.0%) into Group 4. In Group 2, 7 patients (33.3 %) had one frailty marker, and 14 (66.7%) had two or more. The most prevalent of the frailty markers were nutrition, mobility, and physical activity. CONCLUSION: The assessment of seven frailty markers allowed the detection of potential vulnerability among 42% of older cancer patients that would not have been detected through an assessment of IADL and ADL disability alone. A longitudinal study is needed to determine whether the use of frailty markers can better characterize the older cancer population and predict adverse outcomes due to cancer treatment.