Enrolling Older Adults Onto National Cancer Institute-Funded Clinical Trials in Community Oncology Clinics: Barriers and Solutions.

In April 2021, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Division of Cancer Prevention collaborated with the NCI Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis to produce a virtual workshop that developed recommendations for enhancing NCI-sponsored clinical trial accrual of older adults. Prior to the workshop, a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders (eg, community oncologists, advanced practice practitioners, clinic and research staff, and patient advocates) gathered information related to accrual of older adults to clinical trials from the literature. Subsequently, a survey was conducted to detail NCI Community Oncology Research Program members' perspective on accrual barriers for this population; 305 individuals responded to the survey. Barriers to clinical trial accruals included comorbidity-attributed trial ineligibility, transportation and time issues, concern that the proposed regimen is too toxic for older adults, patient or family caregiver declined participation, and lack of trials relevant to older patients. Identified solutions included broadening clinical trial inclusion criteria, increasing the number of clinical trials specifically designed for older adults, simplifying consent forms, improving recruitment materials for older adults and their families, and facilitating transportation vouchers. At the workshop, participants, including stakeholders, used prior literature and survey results to develop recommendations, including interventions to address clinician bias, implement geriatric assessment, and promote clinician and staff engagement as mechanisms to improve accrual of older adults to clinical trials.

Polypharmacy, Potentially Inappropriate Medications, and Drug-Drug Interactions in Vulnerable Older Adults With Advanced Cancer Initiating Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is prevalent in older adults starting cancer treatment and associated with potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), potential drug-drug interactions (DDI), and drug-cancer treatment interactions (DCI). For a large cohort of vulnerable older adults with advanced cancer starting treatment, we describe patterns of prescription and nonprescription medication usage, the prevalence of PIM, and the prevalence, severity, and type of DDI/DCI. METHODS: This secondary analysis used baseline data from a randomized study enrolling patients aged ≥70 years with advanced cancer starting a new systemic cancer treatment (University of Rochester Cancer Center [URCC] 13059; PI: Mohile). PIM were categorized using 2019 Beers criteria and Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions. Potential DDI/DCI were evaluated using Lexi-Interact Online. Medication classification followed the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical system. Bivariate associations were evaluated between sociodemographic and geriatric assessment (GA) measures and medication measures. Chord diagrams and network analysis were used to understand and describe DDI/DCI. RESULTS: Among 718 patients (mean age 77.6 years), polypharmacy (≥5 medications), excessive polypharmacy (≥10 medications), and ≥1 PIM were identified in 61.3%,14.5%, and 67.1%, respectively. Cardiovascular medications were the most prevalent (47%), and nonprescription medications accounted for 26% of total medications and 40% of PIM. One-quarter of patients had ≥1 potential major DDI not involving cancer treatment, and 5.4% had ≥1 potential major DCI. Each additional medication increased the odds of a potential major DDI and DCI by 39% and 12%, respectively. Polypharmacy and PIM are associated with multiple GA domains. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of vulnerable older adults with advanced cancer starting treatment, polypharmacy, PIM, and potential DDI/DCI are very common. Nonprescription medications are frequently PIMs and/or involved in potential DDI/DCI.

Evaluating the association of frailty with communication about aging-related concerns between older patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists.

BACKGROUND: A geriatric assessment (GA) intervention improves communication about aging-related concerns, but its effect on communication in patients with various levels of frailty is unknown. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a nationwide trial of patients aged ≥70 years with incurable cancer and impairment on 1 or more GA domains (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02107443; principal investigator Supriya G. Mohile). Practice sites were randomized to either the GA-intervention or usual care. Frailty was assessed with a deficit accumulation index (range, 0-1), and patients were stratified as robust (0 to <0.2), prefrail (0.2 to <0.35), or frail (≥0.35). The clinic visit after the GA-intervention was audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded to evaluate the number and quality of conversations about aging-related concerns. Linear mixed models examined differences in the number and quality of conversations within and between arms. All P values were 2-sided. RESULTS: Patients (n = 541) were classified as robust (27%), prefrail (42%), or frail (31%). In the usual care arm, frail patients (vs robust ones) engaged in more aging-related conversations (adjusted mean difference, 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.87), conversations of higher quality (difference, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.24-2.0), and more discussions about evidence-based recommendations (difference, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.04-1.38; all P values ≤ .01). Similarly, in the GA intervention arm, frail patients (vs robust ones) engaged in more aging-related conversations (difference, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.51-3.47), conversations of higher quality (difference, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.56-2.06), and more discussions about evidence-based recommendations (difference, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.32-1.42; all P values ≤ .01). Furthermore, the GA-intervention significantly improved the number and quality of conversations in all patients: robust, prefrail, and frail (all P values ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with higher degrees of frailty and those exposed to the GA-intervention had more and higher quality conversations about aging-related concerns with oncologists. LAY SUMMARY: A geriatric assessment (GA) intervention improves communication about aging-related concerns, but its effect on communication in patients with various levels of frailty is unknown. This study conducted a secondary analysis of a nationwide trial of patients aged ≥70 years with incurable cancer and 1 or more GA domain impairments. Patients were stratified as robust, prefrail, or frail. The number and quality of conversations about aging-related concerns that occurred during the clinic visit after the GA-intervention were determined. Patients with higher degrees of frailty and those in the GA intervention arm had more and higher quality conversations about aging-related concerns with oncologists.