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.

Geriatric assessment-driven polypharmacy discussions between oncologists, older patients, and their caregivers.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy (PP) and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are common in older adults with cancer, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Approaches to identifying and addressing PP/PIM are needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ≥70 years with advanced cancer were enrolled in this cluster-randomized study. All underwent geriatric assessment (GA), and oncologists randomized to the intervention arm received GA-driven recommendations; no information was provided to oncologists at usual care sites. For patients with PP (≥5 medications or ≥1 high-risk medication), clinic visits with treating oncologists were audiorecorded and transcribed, and discussions regarding PP/PIM identified. Quality of provider response was coded as dismissed, mentioned, acknowledged, or addressed. RESULTS: Forty patient transcripts were analyzed (20 per arm). More discussions occurred in the intervention group (n = 81) versus the usual care group (n = 51). More concerns per patient were brought up in the intervention group (4.1 vs. 2.6, p = 0.07). Physician-initiated discussions were higher in the intervention group (73% vs. 49%, p = 0.006). More PP concerns were "addressed" in the intervention group (59% vs. 45%, p = 0.1). Oncology supportive care medication concerns were more often addressed in the usual care group (58% vs. 18%, p = 0.008), but medication management concerns were addressed more commonly in the intervention group (38% vs. 79%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In this secondary analysis, a GA-driven intervention increased PP discussions, particularly about total number of medications and medication management. PP/PIM concerns were more commonly addressed in the intervention group, except for the subset of conversations about supportive care medications.

Associations between a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of sarcopenia and falls, functional status, and physical performance in older patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In older patients with cancer, we aimed to investigate associations between a patient-reported outcome measure for sarcopenia (SarcoPRO) and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), self-reported falls, and limitations in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Assessments were conducted as part of the initial evaluation of older, often frail, patients with cancer seen in the Specialized Oncology Care and Research in the Elderly (SOCARE) clinic. Univariate associations were evaluated using Spearman's correlation and Wilcoxon sign ranked tests. Logistic regressions were used to identify associations of clinical factors and SarcoPRO scores or SPPB scores with falls and IADL limitations. RESULTS: In total, 174 older patients with cancer were evaluated. A moderate correlation was found between the SarcoPRO and the SPPB (ρ=0.62). After adjusting for multiple clinical factors, neither the SarcoPRO nor the SPPB were associated with falls. In contrast, both higher SarcoPRO (i.e., worse) and lower SPPB (i.e., worse) scores were associated with limitations in IADLs (odds ratio for one unit change in predictor: SarcoPRO: 1.06, p<0.0001; SPPB: 0.71, p=0.003, respectively). Models using the SarcoPRO and SPPB explained similar amounts of variability in association with IADL limitations (AUC: 0.88 vs. 0.87, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The SarcoPRO was moderately associated with the SPPB, an objective measure of physical performance, and was associated with limitations in IADLs. Thus, older patients with cancer who present with IADL limitations should be screened for sarcopenia. The SarcoPRO shows promise as a measure for screening as well as outcome assessment for research on sarcopenia.