Implementation and evaluation of a remote geriatric assessment and intervention program in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a remote geriatric assessment (GA) and implementation (GAIN) program in Brazil. The authors also explored the effect of this program on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) outcomes 3 months after initiating treatment. METHODS: This is a longitudinal study enrolling older adults (65+ years), diagnosed with any type of solid tumor, scheduled to initiate chemotherapy in a networked Brazilian cancer center. The GA was performed through telehealth. We assessed the feasibility of the remote GA, acceptability to patients, and changes in patient-centered outcomes (HR-QOL, mood, function) from baseline to month 3. Linear mixed model analysis was done, adjusting for age, gender, race, income, and disease stage. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients completed all intended assessments. Notably, the threshold of feasibility was 70% and there was 92% complete adherence. Average age was 76 years old (SD = 7.2). Most patients were female (57%), married (59%), and had a college degree (46%). The most common diagnoses were gastrointestinal (39%) and gynecological cancers (18%); most were diagnosed at an advance disease stage (77%). A total of 32 patients were referred to a remote appointment and 86% followed this recommendation(s). Significant improvement in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General FACT-G (mean difference, 6.04; p < .001), Geriatric Depression Scale (mean difference, -0.86; p = .008), and instrumental activities of daily living ratio (mean difference, 0.17; p < .001) were found. CONCLUSION: Remote GAIN is feasible and acceptable to older adults with cancer receiving treatment in Brazil. The authors also found significant improvement in HR-QOL outcomes over time. Notably, this GAIN program could guide early detection of chemotherapy toxicity and improving patient-reported outcomes in low-resource environments.

We report performance status in oncology-but not nutritional status?

Performance status (PS) scales are used routinely in clinical oncology to evaluate functional status and help direct treatment decisions. PS is also used to determine research protocol eligibility, indicate treatment response, and evaluate toxicity in oncology clinical trials. Malnutrition (like poor PS) is associated with adverse outcomes such as lower tolerance to anti-tumor treatment, poor quality of life, and decreased survival. Nutritional status is therefore arguably as important as PS for cancer outcomes. Despite well-documented adverse consequences for patients, malnutrition also often goes undiagnosed until severe depletion is evident. If the predictive importance of nutritional status is comparable to PS, why is nutritional status not routinely used along with PS to guide treatment decisions? There is compelling evidence to support the predictive abilities of both PS and nutritional status in cancer outcomes and treatment decision-making. Perhaps, PS may be a proxy for nutritional status. Nutritional status might also serve as an effective tool for patient selection and stratification in oncology trials. Together with PS, it might provide important and distinct prognostic information; we propose both should be routinely included in outcome studies. The extent to which impaired PS may be a surrogate for malnutrition warrants investigation. Given its comparable importance to PS, it is inexcusable that nutritional status is not given the prominence it deserves as a key patient-reported outcome.