Oncology care providers' perceptions and anticipated barriers regarding the use of geriatric assessment in routine clinic practice: A mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) is currently not a standard of cancer care across Canada. In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, there are no known formal geriatric teams in outpatient oncology settings. Therefore, it is not known whether, how, and to what extent GA is performed in oncology clinics, or what supports are needed to carry out a GA. The objective of this study was to explore Saskatchewan oncology care providers' knowledge, perceptions, and practices regarding GA, and their perceived barriers to implementing formal GA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, oncology physicians and nurses within the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (SCA) were invited to participate in an anonymous survey and individual open-ended interview. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; free-text responses provided in the survey were summarized. Data from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 physicians and 30 clinic nurses participated in the survey (response rate: 24% [physicians] and 38.0% [nurses]). In terms of cancer treatment and management, the majority (74% of physicians and 62% of nurses) stated considerations for older adults are different than younger patients. More than half (53% of physicians and 58% of nurses) reported making treatment and management decisions primarily based on judgement versus validated tools. For physicians whose practices involve prescribing chemotherapy (16/19), 75% rarely or never use validated tools (e.g., CARG, CRASH) to assess risk of chemotoxicity for older patients. Lack of time and supporting staff and feeling unsure as to where to refer older patients for help or follow-up were the most commonly voiced anticipated barriers to implementing GA. Two physicians and six nurses (n = 8) participated in the open-ended interviews. Main themes included: (1) tension between knowing the importance of GA versus capacity and (2) buy-in. DISCUSSION: Our findings review barriers and opportunities for implementing GA in oncology care in Saskatchewan and provides foundational knowledge to inform efforts to promote personalized medicine and to optimize cancer care for older adults with cancer in this region.

Exploring the Language Used to Describe Older Patients at Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences.

Older adults with cancer often present with distinct complexities that complicate their care, yet the language used to discuss their management at multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) remains poorly understood. A mixed methods study was conducted at a tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada, where MCCs spanning five tumour sites were attended over six months. For presentations pertaining to a patient aged 75 or older, a standardized data collection form was used to record their demographic, cancer-related, and non-cancer-related information, as well as the presenter's specialty and training level. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were employed to explore MCC depictions of older patients (n = 75). Frailty status was explicitly mentioned in 20.0% of presentations, but discussions more frequently referenced comorbidity burden (50.7%), age (33.3%), and projected treatment tolerance (30.7%) as surrogate measures. None of the presentations included mentions of formal geriatric assessment (GA) or validated frailty tools; instead, presenters tended to feature select GA domains and subjective descriptions of appearance ("looks to be fit") or overall health ("relatively healthy"). In general, MCCs appeared to rely on age-focused language that may perpetuate ageism. Further work is needed to investigate how frailty and geriatric considerations can be objectively incorporated into discussions in geriatric oncology.

Stage of diagnosis and survival for prostate cancer among immigrant men in Ontario, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: We previously identified specific immigrant groups (West African and Caribbean) with increased incidence of prostate cancer in Ontario, Canada. In this population-level retrospective cohort study, we used administrative databases to compare stage of diagnosis, 5-year overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival for immigrants versus long-term residents of Ontario. METHODS: We linked several provincial-level databases available at ICES, an independent, non-profit research institute. We included all male Ontario residents 20-105 years of age who had an incident prostate cancer diagnosis date between March 31, 2008 and March 31, 2017, stratified into immigrants vs. long-term residents. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds of early (stage I-II) vs. late (III-IV) stage of diagnosis, adjusting for age, co-morbidities, neighbourhood income and continuity of care. We produced Kaplan-Meier curves for 5-year overall survival and for 5-year prostate cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Compared to long-term residents, men from West Africa (adjusted odds ratio 1.66 [95% CI 1.16-2.38], East Africa (AOR 1.54 [95% CI 1.02-2.33]) and the Caribbean (AOR 1.22 [95% CI 1.01-1.47]) had a diagnostic stage advantage, and men from South Asia were most likely to be diagnosed at a late stage. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, overall and prostate cancer-specific survival were higher for immigrants than long-term residents. The highest five-year overall survival was seen for men from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, and the lowest was seen for South Asian men, where 11.7% died within five years of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Immigrant men in Ontario with prostate cancer are more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage and to survive for 5 years than long-term residents. Among immigrant men, men from the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa have the greatest stage and survival advantage and South Asian men the least. Differences in awareness, diagnostic suspicion, genetic predisposition, and social factors may play a role in these findings.

TOward a comPrehensive supportive Care intervention for Older men with metastatic Prostate cancer (TOPCOP3): A pilot randomized controlled trial and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Current management of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) includes androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARATs), which is associated with substantial toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment and management and remote symptom monitoring have been shown to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their efficacy in patients being treated with ARATs has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to examine whether these interventions, alone or in combination, can improve treatment tolerability and quality of life (QOL) for older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on ARATs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TOPCOP3 is a multi-centre, factorial pilot clinical trial coupled with an embedded process evaluation. The study includes four treatment arms: geriatric assessment and management (GA + M); remote symptom monitoring (RSM); geriatric assessment and management plus remote symptom monitoring; and usual care and will be followed for six months. The aim is to recruit 168 patients between two cancer centres in Toronto, Canada. Eligible participants will be randomized equally via REDCap. Participants in all arms will complete a comprehensive baseline assessment upon enrollment following the Geriatric Core dataset, as well as follow-up assessments at 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 months. The co-primary outcomes will be grade 3-5 toxicity and QOL. Toxicities will be graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. QOL will be measured by patient self-reporting using the EuroQol 5 dimensions of health questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, insomnia, and depression. Finally, four process evaluation outcomes will also be observed, namely feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability, along with implementation barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected to observe the effects of GA + M and RSM on QOL and toxicities experienced by older adults receiving ARATs for metastatic prostate cancer. Data will also be collected to help the design and conduct of a definitive multicentre phase III randomized controlled trial. This study will extend supportive care interventions for older adults with cancer into new areas and inform the design of larger trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05582772).

Understanding the incidence, duration, and severity of symptoms through daily symptom monitoring among frail and non-frail older patients receiving metastatic prostate cancer treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) experience high symptom burden associated with treatment. Frailty may exacerbate treatment toxicity. The aim of this study was to explore short-term treatment toxicity in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Older adults with metastatic prostate cancer starting chemotherapy, androgen-receptor-axis targeted therapies, or radium-223 participated in a prospective, multicentre, observational study. Participants self-reported symptoms daily using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System for one treatment cycle via internet or telephone. The most common moderate-to-severe symptoms (score≥4), their duration, and the proportion of participants who experienced improvements in symptom severity (score<4) after reporting moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline were determined using descriptive statistics. Once-weekly symptom questionnaires were administered and analyzed using linear mixed effect models. Symptom incidence, duration, and frailty associations were assessed using t-tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Ninety participants completed the study (mean age=77 years [standard deviation=6.1], 42% frail [Vulnerable Elders Survey≥3]). The most common moderate-to-severe symptoms across cohorts were fatigue (46.8%), insomnia (42.9%), poor wellbeing (41.2%), pain (37.5%), and decreased appetite (37.1%). Poor wellbeing had a higher incidence in frail participants (62.5% in frail vs. 31.4% in non-frail, p=0.039). Symptom duration varied across cohorts and between frail and non-frail participants. Among participants who reported moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline, no more than 15% improved in any symptom. There were statistically significant improvements in weekly symptoms for fatigue, decreased appetite, and insomnia in the chemotherapy cohort only. DISCUSSION: Limitations include a short follow-up duration, lack of a control group, and few radium-223 participants. Regular symptom monitoring can help clinicians understand temporal patterns and durations of symptoms and inform supportive care approaches.

How representative are participants in geriatric oncology clinical trials? The case of the 5C RCT in geriatric oncology: A cross-sectional comparison to a geriatric oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Frail older adults make up a substantial portion of the older adult population. However, frail patients are often excluded from randomized controlled trials. This underrepresentation restricts the extent to which trial findings can be generalized to this population. We compared a sample from the Canadian 5C Randomized Controlled Trial investigating comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the geriatric oncology setting in terms of frailty to patients referred to the Older Adults with Cancer Clinic (OACC) to determine if the trial sample was representative of the normal geriatric oncology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline CGA data of 5C Trial participants seen at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM), were compared to data from OACC patients that were seen during the duration of the 5C trial (between April 2018 and April 2020) and that satisfied the 5C inclusion criteria. To assess the frailty of samples, sex, age, disease site, comorbidity level, medical optimization, social supports, functional status, falls risk, nutrition, cognition, and mood were compared between 5C participants and OACC patients using Fisher's exact and independent samples t-test. RESULTS: A sample of 115 5C participants and 205 OACC patients were included. The mean age of 5C participants and OACC patients was 75.4 and 81.6 years, respectively (p < 0.001). The distribution of disease sites was significantly different between the samples (p < 0.001) and OACC patients were also significantly more impaired compared to 5C participants in comorbidity (23.4% versus 10.4% high comorbidity) (p = 0.001), IADL dependence (55.1% versus 42.6%) (p = 0.036), impaired physical function (70.6% versus 31.3%) (p < 0.001), falls risk (67.8% versus 27%) (p < 0.001), impaired nutrition (55.6% versus 40.9%) (p = 0.014), and cognition (47.2% versus 10%) (p < 0.001). There were no differences in sex, medication optimization, poor social supports, and impaired mood between the samples. DISCUSSION: The 5C sample was less frail and younger than patients seen in the geriatric oncology clinic. Finding strategies to address barriers to the inclusion of frailer older adults is important to increase their representation in future trials to allow findings to be generalized to this vulnerable population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03154671.

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.

Home-based versus supervised group exercise in men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: A randomized controlled trial and economic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Differences between health outcomes, participation/adoption, and cost-effectiveness of home-based (HOME) interventions and supervised group-based training (GROUP) in men with prostate cancer (PC) on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are currently unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy, adherence, and cost-effectiveness of HOME versus GROUP in men on ADT for PC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicentre, 2-arm non-inferiority randomized controlled trial and companion cost-effectiveness analysis. Men with PC on ADT were recruited from August 2016 to March 2020 from four Canadian centres and randomized 1:1 to GROUP or HOME. All study participants engaged in aerobic and resistance training four to five days weekly for six months. Fatigue [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F)] and functional endurance [6-min walk test (6MWT)] at six months were the co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, physical fitness, body composition, blood markers, sedentary behaviour, and adherence. Between-group differences in primary outcomes were compared to margins of 3 points for FACT-F and 40 m for 6MWT using a Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Secondary outcomes were compared with ANCOVA, Costs included Ministry of Health costs, program costs, patient out-of-pocket, and time costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT02834416. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants (mean [standard deviation (SD)] age, 70 [9.0] years) were enrolled (GROUP n = 20; HOME n = 18). There was an 89.8% probability that HOME was non-inferior to GROUP for both fatigue and functional endurance and a 9.5% probability that HOME reduced fatigue compared to GROUP (mean [SD] change, 12.1 [8.1] vs 3.6 [6.1]; p = 0.040) at six months. Adherence was similar among study arms. HOME was cost-saving (mean difference: -$4122) relative to GROUP. DISCUSSION: A HOME exercise intervention appears non-inferior to GROUP for fatigue and functional endurance and requires fewer resources to implement. HOME appears to ameliorate fatigue more than GROUP, but has comparable effects on other clinically relevant outcomes. Although limited by sample size and attrition, these results support further assessment of home-based programs.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in Older Adults With Cancer: Economic Evaluation Within 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment (GA) is a guideline-recommended approach to optimize cancer management in older adults. We conducted a cost-utility analysis alongside the 5C randomized controlled trial to compare GA and management (GAM) plus usual care (UC) against UC alone in older adults with cancer. METHODS: The economic evaluation, conducted from societal and health care payer perspectives, used a 12-month time horizon. The Canadian 5C study randomly assigned patients to receive GAM or UC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using the EuroQol five dimension-5L questionnaire and health care utilization using cost diaries and chart reviews. We evaluated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for the full sample and preselected subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included, of whom 173 received GAM and 177 UC. At 12 months, the average QALYs per patient were 0.728 and 0.751 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔQALY, -0.023 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.028]). Considering a societal perspective, the total average costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) per patient were $46,739 and $45,177 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔCost, $1,563 [95% CI, -$6,583 to $10,403]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, GAM was not cost-effective compared with UC (INMB, -$2,713 [95% CI, -$11,767 to $5,801]). The INMB was positive ($2,984 [95% CI, -$7,050 to $14,179]; probability of being cost-effective, 72%) for patients treated with curative intent, but remained negative for patients treated with palliative intent (INMB, -$9,909 [95% CI, -$24,436 to $4,153]). Findings were similar considering a health care payer perspective. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first cost-utility analysis of GAM in cancer. GAM was cost-effective for patients with cancer treated with curative but not with palliative intent. The study provides further considerations for future adoption of GAM in practice.

Defining an Abnormal Geriatric Assessment: Which Deficits Matter Most?

At present, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an abnormal geriatric assessment (GA) in geriatric oncology. Various threshold numbers of abnormal GA domains are often used, but how well these are associated with treatment plan modification (TPM) and whether specific GA domains are more important in this context remains uncertain. A retrospective review of the geriatric oncology clinic database at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, including new patients seen for treatment decision making from May 2015 to June 2022, was conducted. Logistic regression modelling was performed to determine the association between various predictor variables (including the GA domains and numerical thresholds) and TPM. The study cohort (n = 736) had a mean age of 80.7 years, 46.1% was female, and 78.3% had a VES-13 score indicating vulnerability (≥3). In the univariable analysis, the best-performing threshold number of abnormal domains based on area under the curve (AUC) was 4 (AUC 0.628). The best-performing multivariable model (AUC 0.704) included cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. In comparison, the multivariable model with the sole addition of the threshold of 4 had an AUC of 0.689. Overall, an abnormal GA may be best defined as one with abnormalities in the domains of cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. The optimal numerical threshold to predict TPM is 4.

Effectiveness of geriatric assessment and management in older cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and multimorbidity among older cancer patients affect treatment tolerance and efficacy. Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management is recommended to optimize cancer treatment, but its effect on various outcomes remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cost-effectiveness studies comparing comprehensive geriatric assessment (with or without implementation of recommendations) to usual care in older cancer patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane trials from inception to January 27, 2023, for RCTs and cost-effectiveness studies. Pooled estimates for outcomes were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 19 full-text articles representing 17 RCTs were included. Average participant age was 72-80 years, and 31%-62% were female. Comprehensive geriatric assessment type, mode of delivery, and evaluated outcomes varied across studies. Meta-analysis revealed no difference in risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.08. 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.29), hospitalization (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.10), early treatment discontinuation (RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.19), initial dose reduction (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.26), and subsequent dose reduction (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.09). However, the risk of treatment toxicity was statistically significantly lower in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.86). No cost-effectiveness studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, comprehensive geriatric assessment was not associated with a difference in risk of mortality, hospitalization, treatment discontinuation, and dose reduction but was associated with a lower risk of treatment toxicity indicating its potential to optimize cancer treatment in this population. Further research is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

HCT frailty scale for younger and older adults undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

The HCT Frailty Scale is an easy prognostic tool composed of (a) Clinical Frailty Scale; (b) Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; (c) Timed-up-and-Go test; (d) Grip Strength; (e) Self-Health Rated Questionnaire; (f) Falls tests; (g) Albumin and C-reactive protein levels. This scale was designed to classify allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) candidates into fit, pre-frail and frail groups, irrespective of age. This study evaluates the ability of this frailty classification to predict overall survival (OS) and non-relapse mortality (NRM) in adult patients of all ages, in a prospective sample of 298 patients transplanted between 2018 and 2020. At first consultation, 103 (34.6%) patients were fit, 148 (49.7%) pre-frail, and 47 (15.8%) were frail. The 2-year OS and NRM of the three groups were 82.9%, 67.4%, and 48.3% (P < 0.001), and 5.4%, 19.2%, and 37.7% (P < 0.001). For patients younger than 60 years (n = 174), the 2-year OS and NRM of fit, pre-frail, and frail groups were 88.4%, 69.3% and 53.1% (P = 0.002), and 5.8%, 22.8%, and 34.8% (P = 0.005), respectively; and in patients older than 60 (n = 124), OS and NRM were 75.5%, 63.8% and 41.4% (P = 0.006), and 4.9%, 16.4%, and 42.1% (P = 0.001). In conclusion, frailty predicted worse transplant outcomes in both younger and older adults.

Geriatric assessment for older people with cancer: policy recommendations.

Most cancers occur in older people and the burden in this age group is increasing. Over the past two decades the evidence on how best to treat this population has increased rapidly. However, implementation of new best practices has been slow and needs involvement of policymakers. This perspective paper explains why older people with cancer have different needs than the wider population. An overview is given of the recommended approach for older people with cancer and its benefits on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In older patients, the geriatric assessment (GA) is the gold standard to measure level of fitness and to determine treatment tolerability. The GA, with multiple domains of physical health, functional status, psychological health and socio-environmental factors, prevents initiation of inappropriate oncologic treatment and recommends geriatric interventions to optimize the patient's general health and thus resilience for receiving treatments. Multiple studies have proven its benefits such as reduced toxicity, better quality of life, better patient-centred communication and lower healthcare use. Although GA might require investment of time and resources, this is relatively small compared to the improved outcomes, possible cost-savings and compared to the large cost of oncologic treatments as a whole.

Implementing geriatric assessment and management for older Canadians with cancer: Adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention, results of the 5C study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) is recommended by professional organizations and recently several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits in multiple health outcomes. GAM typically leads to one or more recommendations for the older adult on how to optimize their health. However, little is known about how well recommendations are adhered to. Understanding these issues is vital to designing GAM trials and clinical programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the number of GAM recommendations made and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention in a multicentre RCT of GAM for older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel RCT conducted in eight hospitals across Canada. Each centre kept a detailed recruitment and retention log. The intervention teams documented adherence to their recommendations. Medical records were also reviewed to assess which recommendations were adhered to. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 members of the intervention teams and 11 oncology team members to assess implementation of the study and the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 350 participants who were enrolled, 173 were randomized to the intervention arm. Median number of recommendations was seven. Mean adherence to recommendations based on the GAM was 69%, but it varied by type of recommendation, ranging from 98% for laboratory tests to 28% for psychosocial/psychiatry oncology referrals. There was no difference in the number of recommendations or non-adherence to recommendations by sex, level of frailty, or functional status. Oncologists and intervention team members were satisfied with the study implementation and intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: Adherence to recommendations was variable. Adherence to laboratory investigations and further imaging were generally high but much lower for recommendations regarding psychosocial support. Further collaborative work with older adults with cancer is needed to understand how to optimize the intervention to be consistent with patient goals, priorities, and values to ensure maximal impact on health outcomes.

Daily physical activity monitoring in older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on active treatment: Feasibility and associations with toxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity may be associated with cancer treatment toxicity, but generalizability to geriatric oncology is unclear. As many older adults have low levels of physical activity and technology use, this area needs further exploration. We evaluated the feasibility of daily step count monitoring and the association between step counts and treatment-emergent symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults aged 65+ starting treatment (chemotherapy, enzalutamide/abiraterone, or radium-223) for metastatic prostate cancer were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Participants reported step counts (measured via smartphone) and symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale) daily for one treatment cycle (i.e., 3-4 weeks). Embedded semi-structured interviews were performed upon completion of the study. The feasibility of daily monitoring was evaluated with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The predictive validity of a decline in daily steps (compared to pre-treatment baseline) for the emergence of symptoms was examined using sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Associations between a 15% decline in steps and the emergence of moderate (4-6/10) to severe (7-10/10) symptoms and pain in the next 24 h were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 90 participants, 47 engaged in step count monitoring (median age = 75, range = 65-88; 52.2% participation rate). Daily physical activity monitoring was found to be feasible (94% retention rate; 90.5% median response rate) with multiple patient-reported benefits including increased self-awareness and motivation to engage in physical activity. During the first treatment cycle, instances of a 15% decline in steps were common (n = 37, 78.7%), as was the emergence of moderate to severe symptoms overall (n = 40, 85.1%) and pain (n = 26, 55.3%). The predictive validity of a 15% decline in steps on the emergence of moderate to severe symptoms was good (sensitivity = 81.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 68.7-95.0; PPV = 73.0%, 95% CI = 58.7-87.3), although the PPV for pain was poor (sensitivity = 77.8%, 95% CI = 58.6-97.0; PPV = 37.8%, 95% CI = 22.2-53.5). In the regression models, changes in daily physical activity were not associated with symptoms or pain. DISCUSSION: Changes in physical activity had modest ability to predict moderate to severe symptoms overall. Although participation was suboptimal, daily activity monitoring in older adults with cancer appears feasible and may have other uses such as improving physical activity levels. Further studies are warranted.

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.

The impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Sarcopenia is common in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and has been largely assessed opportunistically through computed-tomography (CT) scans, excluding measures of muscle function. Therefore, the impact of a comprehensive assessment of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in men with mCRPC is poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to comprehensively assess sarcopenia through CT scans and measures of muscle function and examine its impact on severe treatment toxicity, time to first emergency room (ER) visit, disease progression, and overall mortality in men initiating chemotherapy or androgen receptor-targeted axis (ARAT) therapy for mCRPC. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of men with mCRPC at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between July 2015-May 2021. Participants were classified as sarcopenic if they had CT-based low muscle mass or low muscle density, a grip strength and gait speed score of <35.5kg and <0.8m/s, respectively, prior to treatment initiation. The impact of sarcopenia on severe treatment toxicity was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to determine the impact of sarcopenia on risk of visiting the ER, prostate-specific antigen progression, radiographic progression, and overall mortality. RESULTS: A total of 110 men (mean age: 74.6) were included in the analysis. At baseline, 30 (27.3%) were classified as sarcopenic. Sarcopenia was a significant predictor of severe toxicity (aOR = 6.26, 95%CI = 1.17-33.58, P = 0.032) and ER visits (aHR = 4.41, 95%CI = 1.26-15.43, p = 0.020) in men initiating ARAT but not in men initiating chemotherapy. Sarcopenia was also a predictor of radiographic progression (aHR = 2.39, 95%CI = 1.06-5.36, p = 0.035) and overall mortality (aHR = 2.44, 95%CI = 1.17-5.08, p = 0.018) regardless of treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline sarcopenia predicts radiographic progression and overall mortality in men with mCRPC regardless of the type of treatment and may also predict severe treatment toxicity and ER visits in men initiating ARAT.