Falls prechemotherapy and toxicity-related hospitalization during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in older women: Results from the prospective multicenter HOPE trial.

BACKGROUND: Older women with breast cancer frequently experience toxicity-related hospitalizations during adjuvant chemotherapy. Although the geriatric assessment can identify those at risk, its use in clinic remains limited. One simple, low-cost marker of vulnerability in older persons is fall history. Here, the authors examined whether falls prechemotherapy can identify older women at risk for toxicity-related hospitalization during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: In a prospective study of women >65 years old with stage I-III breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, the authors assessed baseline falls in the past 6 months as a categorical variable: no fall, one fall, and more than one fall. The primary end point was incident hospitalization during chemotherapy attributable to toxicity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between falls and toxicity-related hospitalization, adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric covariates. RESULTS: Of the 497 participants, 60 (12.1%) reported falling before chemotherapy, and 114 (22.9%) had one or more toxicity-related hospitalizations. After adjusting for sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric characteristics, women who fell more than once within 6 months before chemotherapy had greater odds of being hospitalized from toxicity during chemotherapy compared to women who did not fall (50.0% vs. 20.8% experienced toxicity-related hospitalization, odds ratio, 4.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-11.54, p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of older women with early breast cancer, women who experienced more than one fall before chemotherapy had an over 4-fold increased risk of toxicity-related hospitalization during chemotherapy, independent of sociodemographic, disease, and geriatric factors.

Researcher Experience and Comfort With Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring in Cancer Treatment Trials.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of COVID-19, oncology practices across the US have integrated telemedicine (TM) and remote patient monitoring (RPM) into routine care and clinical trials. The extent of provider experience and comfort with TM/RPM in treatment trials, however, is unknown. We surveyed oncology researchers to assess experience and comfort with TM/RPM. METHODS: Between April 10 and June 1, 2022, we distributed email surveys to US-based members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) whose member records indicated interest or specialization in clinical research. We collected respondent demographic data, clinical trial experience, workplace characteristics, and comfort and experience with TM/RPM use across trial components in phase I and phase II/III trials. TM/RPM was defined as clinical trial-related healthcare and monitoring for patients geographically separated from trial site. RESULTS: There were 141 surveys analyzed (5.1% response rate). Ninety percent of respondents had been Principal Investigators, 98% practiced in a norural site. Most respondents had enrolled patients in phase I (82%) and phase II/III trials (99%). Across all phases and trial components, there was a higher frequency of researcher comfort compared to experience. Regarding remote care in treatment trials, 75% reported using TM, RPM, or both. Among these individuals, 62% had never provided remote care to trial patients before the pandemic. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 spurred the rise of TM/RPM in cancer treatment trials, and some TM/RPM use continues in this context. Among oncology researchers, higher levels of comfort compared with real-world experience with TM/RPM reveal opportunities for expanding TM/RPM policies and guidelines in oncology research.

Cancer survivorship challenges of rural older adults: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although research has advanced the field of oncologic geriatrics with survivors to assess their cancer-related needs and devise patient-centered interventions, most of that research has excluded rural populations. This study aimed to understand the survivorship challenges and recommendations in the perspective of rural older adults. METHODS: This was a qualitative study that explored the survivorship challenges and recommendations of rural older adults who have completed curative intent chemotherapy for a solid tumor malignancy in the 12 months prior to enrollment in the present study. RESULTS: Twenty-seven older adult survivors from rural areas completed open-ended semi-structured interviews. The mean age was 73.4 (SD = 5.0). Most participants were non-Hispanic White (96.3%), female (59.3%), married (63.0%), and had up to a high school education (51.9%). Rural older survivors reported a general lack of awareness of survivorship care plans, communication challenges with healthcare team, transportation challenges, financial toxicity, psychological challenges, and diet and physical challenges. Rural older survivors recommend the provision of nutritional advice referral to exercise programs, and social support groups and for their healthcare providers to discuss their survivorship plan with them. CONCLUSIONS: Although study participants reported similar survivorship challenges as urban older adult survivors, additional challenges reported regarding transportation and consideration of farm animals have not been previously reported. Heightened awareness of the survivorship needs of rural older adults may result in better survivorship care for this population.

External Validation of Risk Factors for Unplanned Hospitalization in Older Adults With Advanced Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (age ≥65 years) receiving chemotherapy are at risk for hospitalization. Predictors of unplanned hospitalization among older adults receiving chemotherapy for cancer were recently published using data from a study conducted by the Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG). Our study aimed to externally validate these predictors in an independent cohort including older adults with advanced cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: This validation cohort included patients (n=369) from the GAP70+ trial usual care arm. Enrolled patients were aged ≥70 years with incurable cancer and were starting a new line of chemotherapy. Previously identified risk factors proposed by the CARG study were ≥3 comorbidities, albumin level <3.5 g/dL, creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, gastrointestinal cancer, ≥5 medications, requiring assistance with activities of daily activities (ADLs), and having someone available to take them to the doctor (ie, presence of social support). The primary outcome was unplanned hospitalization within 3 months of treatment initiation. Multivariable logistic regression was applied including the 7 identified risk factors. Discriminative ability of the fitted model was performed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve. RESULTS: Mean age of the cohort was 77 years, 45% of patients were women, and 29% experienced unplanned hospitalization within the first 3 months of treatment. The proportions of hospitalized patients with 0-3, 4-5, and 6-7 identified risk factors were 24%, 28%, and 47%, respectively (P=.04). Impaired ADLs (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.04-2.99) and albumin level <3.5 g/dL (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.37-3.62) were significantly associated with increased odds of unplanned hospitalization. The AUC of the model, including the 7 identified risk factors, was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.59-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a higher number of risk factors was associated with increased odds of unplanned hospitalization. This association was largely driven by impairment in ADLs and low albumin level. Validated predictors of unplanned hospitalization can help with counseling and shared decision-making with patients and their caregivers. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02054741.

Mental health outcomes and correlates in cancer patients entering survivorship after curative treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer survivors face numerous physical and mental health challenges after treatment completion. However, few studies have examined mental health in cancer survivors who received curative treatment during the transition out of active treatment and into survivorship. The current study describes the mental health outcomes and their correlates in cancer survivors treated with curative intent during the first year of survivorship. METHODS: A total of 120 cancer survivors of any cancer type completed a survey that assessed depression, anxiety, death ideation, alcohol and substance use, and demographic characteristics. Data regarding cancer type and treatment were extracted from the medical record. RESULTS: Approximately 15% of the sample reported depressive symptoms. Fifteen percent also reported anxiety symptoms in the past two weeks. Ten percent of the sample reported experiencing death ideation since their treatment ended and 7.5% reported death ideation in the past two weeks. Younger age, previous psychiatric diagnosis, and current substance use were associated with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and death ideation. CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors entering survivorship after curative treatment experience an increased rate of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and death ideation. Younger cancer survivors and those with previous psychiatric diagnoses or substance use may be at particular risk for mental health problems during the first year of survivorship. Future research within both oncology and primary care should further examine modifiable risk factors for depression, anxiety, and death ideation in cancer survivors at the transition into survivorship after curative treatment to improve survivorship care.

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.

The longitudinal relationship between immune cell profiles and frailty in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with an increased risk of chemotherapy toxicity. Cellular markers of inflammation can help identify patients with frailty characteristics. However, the role of cellular markers of inflammation in identifying patients at risk of developing chemotherapy-induced frailty and their clinical utility are not fully understood. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of a large nationwide cohort study of women with stage I-IIIC breast cancer (n = 581, mean age 53.4; range 22-81). Measures were completed pre-chemotherapy (T1), post-chemotherapy (T2), and 6 months post-chemotherapy (T3). Frailty was assessed at all three time points using a modified Fried score consisting of four self-reported measures (weakness, exhaustion, physical activity, and walking speed; 0-4, 1 point for each). Immune cell counts as well as neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) were obtained at T1 and T2 time points. Separate linear regressions were used to evaluate the associations of (1) cell counts at T1 with frailty at T1, T2, and T3 and (2) change in cell counts (T2-T1) with frailty at T2 and T3. We controlled for relevant covariates and frailty at the T1 time point. RESULTS: From T1 to T2, the mean frailty score increased (1.3 vs 2.0; p < 0.01) and returned to T1 levels by the T3 time point (1.3 vs 1.3; p = 0.85). At the T1 time point, there was a positive association between cellular markers of inflammation and frailty: WBC (ß = 0.04; p < 0.05), neutrophils (ß = 0.04; p < 0.05), and NLR (ß = 0.04; p < 0.01). From T1 to T2, a greater increase in cellular markers of inflammation was associated with frailty at T2 (WBC: ß = 0.02, p < 0.05; neutrophils: ß = 0.03, p < 0.05; NLR: ß = 0.03; p < 0.01). These associations remained significant after controlling for the receipt of growth factors with chemotherapy and the time between when laboratory data was provided and the start or end of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy, cellular markers of inflammation are associated with frailty. Immune cell counts may help clinicians identify patients at risk of frailty during chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01382082.

Patient and caregiver agreement on prognosis estimates for older adults with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Disagreements between patients and caregivers about treatment benefits, care decisions, and patients' health are associated with increased patient depression as well as increased caregiver anxiety, distress, depression, and burden. Understanding the factors associated with disagreement may inform interventions to improve the aforementioned outcomes. METHODS: For this analysis, baseline data were obtained from a cluster-randomized geriatric assessment trial that recruited patients aged ≥70 years who had incurable cancer from community oncology practices (University of Rochester Cancer Center 13070; Supriya G. Mohile, principal investigator). Patient and caregiver dyads were asked to estimate the patient's prognosis. Response options were 0 to 6 months, 7 to 12 months, 1 to 2 years, 2 to 5 years, and >5 years. The dependent variable was categorized as exact agreement (reference), patient-reported longer estimate, or caregiver-reported longer estimate. The authors used generalized estimating equations with multinomial distribution to examine the factors associated with patient-caregiver prognostic estimates. Independent variables were selected using the purposeful selection method. RESULTS: Among 354 dyads (89% of screened patients were enrolled), 26% and 22% of patients and caregivers, respectively, reported a longer estimate. Compared with dyads that were in agreement, patients were more likely to report a longer estimate when they screened positive for polypharmacy (ß = 0.81; P = .001), and caregivers reported greater distress (ß = 0.12; P = .03). Compared with dyads that were in agreement, caregivers were more likely to report a longer estimate when patients screened positive for polypharmacy (ß = 0.82; P = .005) and had lower perceived self-efficacy in interacting with physicians (ß = -0.10; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Several patient and caregiver factors were associated with patient-caregiver disagreement about prognostic estimates. Future studies should examine the effects of prognostic disagreement on patient and caregiver outcomes.

Caregiver-Oncologist Prognostic Concordance, Caregiver Mastery, and Caregiver Psychological Health and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers of adults with cancer often report a different understanding of the patient's prognosis than the oncologist. We examine the associations of caregiver-oncologist prognostic concordance with caregiver depressive symptoms, distress, and quality of life (QoL). We also explore whether these relationships differed by caregiver environment mastery, an individual's sense of control, and effectiveness in managing life situations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from a national geriatric assessment cluster-randomized trial (URCC 13070) that recruited patients aged 70 years and older with incurable cancer considering any line of cancer treatment at community oncology practices, their caregivers, and their oncologists. At enrollment, caregivers and oncologists estimated the patient's prognosis (0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, 2-5 years, and >5 years; identical responses were concordant). Caregivers completed the Ryff's environmental mastery at enrollment. At 4-6 weeks, caregivers completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (depressive symptoms), distress thermometer, and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (quality of life [QoL]). We used generalized estimating equations in models adjusted for covariates. We then assessed the moderation effect of caregiver mastery. RESULTS: Of 411 caregiver-oncologist dyads (mean age = 66.5 years), 369 provided responses and 28% were concordant. Prognostic concordance was associated with greater caregiver depressive symptoms (ß = 0.30; p = .04) but not distress or QoL. A significant moderation effect for caregiver depressive symptoms was found between concordance and mastery (p = .01). Specifically, among caregivers with low mastery (below median), concordance was associated with greater depressive symptoms (ß = 0.68; p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver-oncologist prognostic concordance was associated with caregiver depressive symptoms. We found a novel moderating effect of caregiver mastery on the relationship between concordance and caregiver depressive symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Caregiver-oncologist prognostic concordance is associated with greater caregiver depressive symptoms, particularly in those with low caregiver mastery. When discussing prognosis with caregivers, physicians should be aware that prognostic understanding may affect caregiver psychological health and should assess their depressive symptoms. In addition, while promoting accurate prognostic understanding, physicians should also identify strengths and build resilience among caregivers.

Identifying Geriatric Oncology Competencies for Medical Oncology Trainees: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study.

BACKGROUND: Most oncology trainees are not taught about the needs of older patients, who make up the majority of patients with cancer. Training of health care providers is critical to improve the care of older adults with cancer. There is no consensus about which geriatric oncology (GO) competencies are important for medical oncology trainees. Our objective was to identify GO competencies medical oncology trainees should acquire during training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus of experts in oncology medical education and GO was conducted. Experts categorized at what training stage proposed competencies should be attained: internal medicine, oncology, or GO training. Consensus was obtained if two thirds of experts agreed on the training stage at which the competency should be attained. RESULTS: A total of 78 potential competencies were identified, of which 35 (44.9%) proposed competencies were felt to be appropriate to be acquired during oncology training. The majority of the identified competencies pertained to prescribing of systemic therapy (n = 12) and psychosocial and supportive care (n = 13). No competencies related to geriatric assessment were identified for acquisition during oncology training. CONCLUSION: Experts in oncology education and geriatric oncology agreed upon a set of GO competencies appropriate for oncology trainees. These results provide the foundation for developing a GO curriculum for medical oncology trainees and will hopefully lead to better care of older adults with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The aging population will drive the projected rise in cancer incidence. Although aging patients make up the majority of patients diagnosed with cancer, oncologists rarely receive training on how to care for them. Training of health care providers is critical to improving the care of older adults with cancer. The results of this study will help form the foundation of developing a geriatric oncology curriculum for medical oncology trainees.

Willingness to bear adversity and beliefs about the curability of advanced cancer in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with advanced cancer who are 100% certain they will be cured pose unique challenges for clinical decision making, but to the authors' knowledge, the prevalence and correlates of absolute certainty about curability (ACC) are unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected in a geriatric assessment trial. ACC was assessed by asking patients, "What do you believe are the chances that your cancer will go away and never come back with treatment?" Response options were 100% (coded as ACC), >50%, 50/50, <50%, 0%, and uncertain. The willingness to bear adversity in exchange for longevity was assessed by asking patients to consider trade-offs between survival and 2 clinical outcomes that varied in abstractness: 1) maintaining quality of life (QOL; an abstract outcome); and 2) specific treatment-related toxicities (eg, nausea/vomiting, worsening memory). Logistic regression was used to assess the independent associations between willingness to bear adversity and ACC. RESULTS: Of the 524 patients aged 70 to 96 years, approximately 5.3% reported that there was a 100% chance that their cancer would be cured (ACC). ACC was not found to be significantly associated with willingness to bear treatment-related toxicities, but was more common among patients who were willing to trade QOL for survival (adjusted odds ratio, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.17-14.26). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were more willing to bear adversity in the form of an abstract state, namely decreased QOL, were more likely to demonstrate ACC. Although conversations regarding prognosis should be conducted with all patients, those who are willing to trade QOL for survival may especially benefit from conversations that focus on values and emotions.

Community Oncologists' Decision-Making for Treatment of Older Patients With Cancer.

Background: This study's objectives were to describe community oncologists' beliefs about and confidence with geriatric care and to determine whether geriatric-relevant information influences cancer treatment decisions. Methods: Community oncologists were recruited to participate in 2 multisite geriatric oncology trials. Participants shared their beliefs about and confidence in caring for older adults. They were also asked to make a first-line chemotherapy recommendation (combination vs single-agent vs no chemotherapy) for a hypothetical vignette of an older patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. Each oncologist received one randomly chosen vignette that varied on 3 variables: age (72/84 years), impaired function (yes/no), and cognitive impairment (yes/no). Other patient characteristics were held constant. Logistic regression models were used to identify associations between oncologist/vignette-patient characteristics and treatment decisions. Results: Oncologist response rate was 61% (n=305/498). Most oncologists agreed that "the care of older adults with cancer needs to be improved" (89%) and that "geriatrics training is essential" (72%). However, <25% were "very confident" in recognizing dementia or conducting a fall risk or functional assessment, and only 23% reported using the geriatric assessment in clinic. Each randomly varied patient characteristic was independently associated with the decision to treat: younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.01; 95% CI, 2.73-9.20), normal cognition (aOR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.01-9.76), and being functionally intact (aOR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.12-7.00). Accounting for all vignettes across all scenarios, 161 oncologists (52%) said they would offer chemotherapy. All variables were independently associated with prescribing single-agent over combination chemotherapy (older age: aOR, 3.22; 95% CI 1.43-7.25, impaired cognition: aOR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.36-7.20, impaired function: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.12-5.72). Oncologists' characteristics were not associated with decisions about providing chemotherapy. Conclusion: Geriatric-relevant information, when available, strongly influences community oncologists' treatment decisions.

Geriatric assessment with management intervention in older adults with cancer: a randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults receiving cancer therapy have heightened risk for treatment-related toxicity. Geriatric assessment (GA) can identify impairments, which may contribute to vulnerability and adverse outcomes. GA management interventions can address these impairments and have the potential to improve outcomes when implemented. METHODS: We conducted a randomized pilot study comparing GA with management interventions versus usual care in patients with stage III/IV solid tumor malignancies (N = 71). In all patients, a trained coordinator conducted and scored a baseline GA with pre-determined cutoffs for impairment. For patients randomized to the intervention arm, an algorithm was used to identify GA management recommendations based upon identified impairments. Recommendations were relayed to the primary oncologist for implementation. GA was repeated at 3 months. The primary outcome was grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, hospitalizations, dose reductions, dose delays, and early treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: The mean participant age was 76 (70-89). The total number of GA management recommendations relayed was 409, of which 35.4% were implemented by the primary oncologist. Incidence of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity did not differ between the two groups. Prevalence of hospitalization, dose reductions, dose delays, and early treatment discontinuation also did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm can be used to guide GA management recommendations in older adults with cancer. However, reliance upon the primary oncologist for execution resulted in a low prevalence of implementation. Future work should aim to understand barriers to implementation and explore alternate models of implementing geriatric-focused care for older adults with cancer.

Associations of sleep disturbance with physical function and cognition in older adults with cancer.

PURPOSE: Although sleep disturbances are common in older adults, studies evaluating the prevalence of sleep disturbance and its influence on functional outcomes in older adults with cancer are few. In this study, we examined the prevalence of sleep disturbance and its association with physical function and cognition in older adults with cancer. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of patients who were referred and evaluated in the Specialized Oncology Care & Research in the Elderly (SOCARE) clinics at the Universities of Rochester and Chicago from May 2011 to October 2015. All patients underwent a geriatric assessment (GA) as part of their routine evaluation. Our final study cohort included patients who completed a sleep assessment and consented to the study. We collected demographics (age, sex, race, marital status, and education level) and clinical characteristics (depression, comorbidity, cancer type, and stage) from the GA and medical chart reviews. Presence of sleep disturbance was self-reported (yes/no). Physical function was assessed using Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs), physical activity (PA) survey, falls in the preceding 6 months, and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Cognition was screened using the Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test (impairment >4) or Montreal Cognitive Assessment (impairment <26). Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to examine the associations between sleep disturbance with functional outcomes and cognition. RESULTS: We included 389 older patients. The prevalence of sleep disturbance was 40%. Sixty-eight percent had ≥1 IADL impairment, 76% had PA limitation, 37% had ≥1 fall, 70% had impairment on SPPB, and 47% screened positive for cognitive impairment. On bivariate analyses, sleep disturbance was associated with IADL impairment (odds ratio [OR] 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-3.13, P = 0.005), and PA limitation (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.38-4.28, P = 0.002). The associations remained significant on multivariable analyses. Sleep disturbance was not significantly associated with falls, impairment on SPPB, and performance on the cognitive screen. CONCLUSION: Sleep disturbance was associated with IADL impairment and PA limitation. It is important for oncologists to inquire about sleep problems, and these patients should also be screened for functional impairment if sleep disturbance was present.

Improving the quality of survivorship for older adults with cancer.

In May 2015, the Cancer and Aging Research Group, in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging through a U13 grant, convened a conference to identify research priorities to help design and implement intervention studies to improve the quality of life and survivorship of older, frailer adults with cancer. Conference attendees included researchers with multidisciplinary expertise and advocates. It was concluded that future intervention trials for older adults with cancer should: 1) rigorously test interventions to prevent the decline of or improve health status, especially interventions focused on optimizing physical performance, nutritional status, and cognition while undergoing cancer treatment; 2) use standardized care plans based on geriatric assessment findings to guide targeted interventions; and 3) incorporate the principles of geriatrics into survivorship care plans. Also highlighted was the need to integrate the expertise of interdisciplinary team members into geriatric oncology research, improve funding mechanisms to support geriatric oncology research, and disseminate high-impact results to the research and clinical community. In conjunction with the 2 prior U13 meetings, this conference provided the framework for future research to improve the evidence base for the clinical care of older adults with cancer. Cancer 2016;122:2459-68. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Incorporating Geriatric Medicine Providers into the Care of the Older Adult with Cancer.

A significant proportion of cancer patients and survivors are age 65 and over. Older adults with cancer often have more complex medical and social needs than their younger counterparts. Geriatric medicine providers (GMPs) such as geriatricians, geriatric-trained advanced practice providers, and geriatric certified registered nurses have expertise in caring for older adults, managing complex medical situations, and optimizing function and independence for this population. GMPs are not routinely incorporated into cancer care for older adults; however, their particular skill set may add benefit at many points along the cancer care continuum. In this article, we review the role of geriatric assessment in the care of older cancer patients, highlight specific case scenarios in which GMPs may offer additional understanding and insight in the care of older adults with cancer, and discuss specific mechanisms for incorporating GMPs into oncology care.

Geriatric Assessment-Guided Care Processes for Older Adults: A Delphi Consensus of Geriatric Oncology Experts.

BACKGROUND: Structured care processes that provide a framework for how oncologists can incorporate geriatric assessment (GA) into clinical practice could improve outcomes for vulnerable older adults with cancer, a growing population at high risk of toxicity from cancer treatment. We sought to obtain consensus from an expert panel on the use of GA in clinical practice and to develop algorithms of GA-guided care processes. METHODS: The Delphi technique, a well-recognized structured and reiterative process to reach consensus, was used. Participants were geriatric oncology experts who attended NIH-funded U13 or Cancer and Aging Research Group conferences. Consensus was defined as an interquartile range of 2 or more units, or 66.7% or greater, selecting a utility/helpfulness rating of 7 or greater on a 10-point Likert scale. For nominal data, consensus was defined as agreement among 66.7% or more of the group. RESULTS: From 33 invited, 30 participants completed all 3 rounds. Most experts (75%) used GA in clinical care, and the remainder were involved in geriatric oncology research. The panel met consensus that "all patients aged 75 years or older and those who are younger with age-related health concerns" should undergo GA and that all domains (function, physical performance, comorbidity/polypharmacy, cognition, nutrition, psychological status, and social support) should be included. Consensus was met for how GA could guide nononcologic interventions and cancer treatment decisions. Algorithms for GA-guided care processes were developed. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi investigation of geriatric oncology experts demonstrated that GA should be performed for older patients with cancer to guide care processes.

Primary Treatment Modification and Treatment Tolerability Among Older Chemotherapy Recipients With Advanced Cancer.

Importance: Older adults with advanced cancer are less likely to tolerate treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy compared with younger patients due to their aging-related conditions. Hence, oncologists sometimes opt to employ primary treatment modifications (deviation from standard of care) during the first cycle of chemotherapy. Objective: To examine the association between primary treatment modification and treatment tolerability in older adults with advanced cancer who were starting new palliative chemotherapy regimens. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a secondary analysis of the GAP70+ (Geriatric Assessment Intervention for Reducing Toxicity in Older Patients with Advanced Cancer) trial, which was conducted between July 2014 and March 2019. The GAP70+ trial included patients aged 70 years or older who had advanced (ie, incurable) cancer, had 1 or more geriatric assessment domain impairments, and planned to start a new palliative chemotherapy regimen. Data analysis was conducted in November 2022. Exposures: Receipt of standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens vs primary treatment modification defined as any change from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines or published clinical trials (eg, primary dose reduction, schedule change). Main Outcomes and Measures: Tolerability outcomes were assessed within 3 months of treatment. These outcomes included the following: (1) any grade 3 to 5 toxic effect, according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; (2) patient-reported functional decline, defined as the development of worse dependency in activities of daily living using scale scores; and (3) a composite adverse outcome (an end point that combined toxic effects, functional decline, and 6-month overall survival). Multivariable cluster-weighted generalized estimating equation models examined the association between primary treatment modification and outcomes adjusting for covariates. Results: This study included 609 patients with a mean (SD) age of 77.2 (5.2) years; more than half (333 [54.7%]) were men. Race and ethnicity was available for 607 patients: 39 (6.4%) were Black, 539 (88.5%) were non-Hispanic White, and 29 (4.8%) were of other race or ethnicity. Nearly half (281 [46.1%]) received a primary modified treatment regimen. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal cancer (228 [37.4%]) and lung cancer (174 [28.6%]). In multivariable analysis, primary treatment modification was associated with a reduced risk of grade 3 to 5 toxic effects (relative risk [RR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.94]) and functional decline (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]). Patients who received primary treatment modification had 32.0% lower odds of having a worse composite adverse outcome (odds ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.48-0.97]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, primary treatment modification was associated with improved tolerability of chemotherapeutic regimens among older adults with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions. These findings may help optimize cancer treatment dosing in older adults with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions.

Prognostic awareness and willingness to explore prognosis in older adults with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Prognostic awareness varies widely among older adults with cancer. Accurate prognostic awareness helps to ensure delivery of care that is aligned with the patient's goals. Understanding factors associated with poor prognostic awareness in older adults with cancer may help identify which patients may need interventions to improve prognostic awareness. In this study, we assessed factors associated with poor prognostic awareness in older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of older patients with cancer referred to a geriatric oncology clinic at the University of Rochester. We provided paper questionnaires for patients to complete prior to their clinic assessment. Questionnaires asked patients to estimate their overall life expectancy and the life expectancy of a person of the same age with normal health. Prognostic awareness was considered poor if patients estimated living at least as long as a person of the same age with normal health. We assessed independent demographic and clinical variables (age, sex, race, income, religion, living situation, education, marital status, and cancer type and stage), aging-related factors (comorbidities, cognition, depression, social support, nutritional status, and physical function), and willingness to discuss prognosis. Factors significant at p ≤ 0.15 on bivariate analyses were included in the multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: We included 257 patients; the mean age was 80 years (standard deviation [SD] 6.8, range 55-97), 37% were female, 71% were White, and 44% were married. Nearly two-thirds of patients (62%) had poor prognostic awareness: 7% estimated they would live longer than and 55% estimated they would live as long as a person of the same age with normal health. Half (49%) were willing to discuss prognosis, 29% were not, and 22% did not answer. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with poor prognostic awareness were older age [one-year increase; adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.12], race other than White (AOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.09-5.06), unwillingness to discuss prognosis (AOR 3.33, 95% CI 1.54-7.18), and stage I-III cancer (vs. stage IV, AOR 3.83, 95% CI 1.8-8.17). DISCUSSION: In a cohort of older patients with cancer, approximately two-thirds had poor prognostic awareness. Older age, race other than White, stage I-III cancer, and unwillingness to discuss prognosis were associated with higher odds of poor prognostic awareness. Interventions aiming to improve patients' prognostic awareness may need to gauge patients' willingness to discuss prognosis.