Functional decline in older breast cancer survivors treated with and without chemotherapy and non-cancer controls: results from the Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) prospective study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess whether physical functional decline in older women with early-stage breast cancer is driven by cancer, chemotherapy, or a combination of both. METHODS: We prospectively sampled three groups of women aged ≥ 65: 444 with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy (BC Chemo), 98 with early-stage breast cancer not receiving chemotherapy (BC Control), and 100 non-cancer controls (NC Control). Physical function was assessed at two timepoints (T1 [baseline] and T2 [3, 4, or 6 months]) using the Physical Functioning Subscale (PF-10) of the RAND 36-item Short Form. The primary endpoint was the change in PF-10 scores from T1 to T2, analyzed continuously and dichotomously (Yes/No, with "yes" indicating a PF-10 decline > 10 points, i.e., a substantial and clinically meaningful difference). RESULTS: Baseline PF-10 scores were similar across all groups. The BC Chemo group experienced a significant decline at T2, with a median change in PF-10 of -5 (interquartile range [IQR], -20, 0), while BC Control and NC Control groups showed a median change of 0 (IQR, -5, 5; p < 0.001). Over 30% of BC Chemo participants had a substantial decline in PF-10 vs. 8% in the BC Control and 5% in the NC Control groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the combination of breast cancer and chemotherapy contributes to accelerated functional decline. Our findings reinforce the need to develop interventions aimed at preserving physical function, particularly during and after chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The high prevalence of accelerated functional decline in older women undergoing breast cancer chemotherapy underscores the urgency to develop interventions aimed at preserving physical function and improving health outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01472094, Hurria Older PatiEnts (HOPE) with Breast Cancer Study.

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.

Low-Intensity Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer in Older Women: Results From the Prospective Multicenter HOPE Trial.

PURPOSE: Older women with high-risk early breast cancer (EBC) benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, but their treatment is frequently complicated by toxic side effects, resulting in dose reductions and delays. This makes it challenging for oncologists to maintain a relative dose intensity (RDI) ≥ 85%, as recommended for optimal curative-intent treatment. Understanding which women are at risk of receiving suboptimal RDI may inform treatment discussions and guide early, targeted supportive care or geriatric comanagement interventions. METHODS: This was a prespecified secondary analysis of the HOPE trial, which enrolled women age ≥ 65 years with EBC initiating neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. RDI was calculated as the ratio of delivered to planned chemotherapy dose intensity. The primary outcome was low RDI, defined as RDI < 85%. Multivariable logistic regression with stepwise selection was used to evaluate the association between baseline variables (demographic, clinical, and geriatric assessment) and low RDI. Survival probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to compare overall survival. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-two patients (median age at diagnosis, 70 years; range, 65-86 years) were included. The median follow-up was 4 years. Sixty-six patients (21%) had a low RDI. Age ≥ 76 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.57; 95% CI, 1.12 to 5.91; P = .03), lower performance status (OR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.98 to 9.42; P < .001), and use of anthracycline-based or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil regimens (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.71 to 7.05; P < .001) were associated with low RDI. The 5-year overall survival probability was 0.80 versus 0.91 in patients with RDI < 85 versus ≥ 85%, respectively (log-rank P = .02). CONCLUSION: One in five older patients with EBC treated with standard chemotherapy received low RDI and had inferior survival outcomes. Older patients at risk for low RDI should be identified and targeted upfront before initiating chemotherapy.

Risk Factors for Hospitalizations Among Older Adults with Gastrointestinal Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (≥65 years) with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers who receive chemotherapy are at increased risk of hospitalization caused by treatment-related toxicity. Geriatric assessment (GA) has been previously shown to predict risk of toxicity in older adults undergoing chemotherapy. However, studies incorporating the GA specifically in older adults with GI cancers have been limited. This study sought to identify GA-based risk factors for chemotherapy toxicity-related hospitalization among older adults with GI cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a secondary post hoc subgroup analysis of two prospective studies used to develop and validate a GA-based chemotherapy toxicity score. The incidence of unplanned hospitalizations during the course of chemotherapy treatment was determined. RESULTS: This analysis included 199 patients aged ≥65 years with a diagnosis of GI cancer (85 colorectal, 51 gastric/esophageal, and 63 pancreatic/hepatobiliary). Sixty-five (32.7%) patients had ≥1 hospitalization. Univariate analysis identified sex (female), cardiac comorbidity, stage IV disease, low serum albumin, cancer type (gastric/esophageal), hearing deficits, and polypharmacy as risk factors for hospitalization. Multivariable analyses found that patients who had cardiac comorbidity (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.42) were significantly more likely to be hospitalized. CONCLUSION: Cardiac comorbidity may be a risk factor for hospitalization in older adults with GI cancers receiving chemotherapy. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to examine the relationship between GA measures and hospitalization in this vulnerable population.

Predictors of Unplanned Hospitalizations Among Older Adults Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Hospitalizations during cancer treatment are costly, can impair quality of life, and negatively affect therapy completion. Our objective was to identify risk factors for unplanned hospitalization among older adults receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a multisite cohort study (N = 750) of patients ≥ 65 years of age evaluated with a geriatric assessment (GA) to predict chemotherapy toxicity. The primary outcome of this analysis was unplanned hospitalizations during treatment; the secondary outcome was length of stay (LOS) of the first hospitalization. Independent variables included pretreatment GA measures, laboratory values, cancer type and stage, and treatment intensity characteristics. We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of hospitalization and generalized linear models for LOS in multivariable analyses. RESULTS: The sample median age was 72 years (range, 65-94 years); 59% had stage IV disease. At least one unplanned hospitalization occurred in 193 patients (25.7%) during receipt of chemotherapy. In multivariable analyses controlling for cancer type, the following baseline characteristics were significantly associated with increased odds of hospitalization: needing help bathing or dressing (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1), polypharmacy (≥ 5 meds) (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.4), more comorbid conditions (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.3), availability of someone to take them to the doctor (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.1), CrCl < 60 mL/min (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.4), and albumin < 3.5 g/dL (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.8). In multivariable analyses, older age, self-reported presence of liver or kidney disease, living alone and depressive symptoms were associated with longer LOS. CONCLUSION: Readily available GA variables and laboratory data, but not age, were associated with unplanned hospitalizations among older adults receiving chemotherapy. If validated, these data can inform prediction models and the design of interventions to decrease unplanned hospitalizations.

Status of the Clinician Investigator in America: An Essential Healthcare Provider Driving Advances in Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Translation of basic discoveries to clinical care for patients with cancer is a difficult process greatly enabled by physician-trained researchers. Three categories of physicians, with responsibilities spanning from laboratory and preclinical research to direct patient care, are involved in the translational research continuum: physician-scientist (PS), clinician investigator (CI), and academic clinician (AC). METHODS: To define how protected time for research efforts is supported, the Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) conducted a survey of their member institutions, obtaining 56 responses documenting time spent in research and clinical activities across multiple cancer disciplines, and providing information about funding streams for the different categories of cancer physicians. RESULTS: Responses showed that PSs and ACs are minimally involved in clinical research activities; the driver or clinical research in academic cancer centers is the CI. A significant concern was a lack of stable funding streams for nonbillable clinical research activities, putting the sustainability of the CI in jeopardy. Limited funding was derived from hospital sources, with most support derived from cancer center sources. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of the CI in translational cancer medicine and represents a call to action for institutions and research funding agencies to develop new programs targeted toward CI support to ensure continued progress against cancer.

Association between a cognitive screening test and severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive impairment (CI) increases chemotherapy toxicity risk with need to understand this association utilizing publicly available short screening tools. We evaluated this utilizing a lower threshold on a short screening tool in older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) Chemotherapy Toxicity Risk tool (CARG score) development and validation cohorts (n = 703), which recruited adults age ≥ 65 with cancer from academic centers. Cognition was evaluated with the Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration test (BOMC). Patients with BOMC score ≥ 11 were excluded. Utilizing cut-points for older adults, we considered moderate BOMC scores (5-10) as potential CI. Logistic regression was used for analysis. RESULTS: Patient baseline characteristics included: mean age 73; 85% white; 63% college or higher education; 250 (36%) potential CI; 385 (55%) severe toxicity. Patients with potential CI were more likely non-white (p ≤ 0.01) and to have high school or lower education (p ≤ 0.01) and high CARG score (p = 0.04). Potential CI was associated with increased severe toxicity risk (OR = 1.54, p ≤ 0.01). After adjusting for CARG score, this association became nonsignificant (OR = 1.35; p = 0.08). Among patients with lower education (n = 258; 36.7%), potential CI remained associated with severe toxicity, even after adjusting for CARG score (OR = 1.87, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest potential cognitive impairment, defined by BOMC score 5-10, in older adults with cancer and lower education is associated with increased severe toxicity risk. Future studies are needed to validate these findings. Healthcare providers should consider cognitive testing before treatment for these vulnerable patients.

Association between patient-reported hearing and visual impairments and functional, psychological, and cognitive status among older adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hearing and visual impairments are common among community-dwelling older adults, and are associated with psychological, functional, and cognitive deficits. However, to the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding their prevalence among older patients with cancer. METHODS: The current study was a secondary analysis combining 2 prospective cohorts of adults aged ≥65 years with solid tumors who were receiving chemotherapy. The authors assessed the association between patient-reported hearing and/or visual impairment (defined as fair/poor grading by self-report) and physical function, instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), anxiety, depression, and cognition. Descriptive analyses were conducted to summarize patient and treatment characteristics. One-way analysis of variance and chi-square tests were conducted as appropriate to examine differences between patients with and without sensory impairments. Logistic regression was used to analyze associations between sensory impairments and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 750 patients with a median age of 72 years who had solid tumors (29% with breast/gynecological tumors, 28% with lung tumors, and 27% with gastrointestinal tumors), approximately 18% reported hearing impairment alone, 11% reported visual impairment alone, and 7% reported dual sensory impairment. Hearing impairment was associated with IADL dependence (odds ratio [OR], 1.9), depression (OR, 1.6), and anxiety (OR, 1.6). Visual impairment was associated with IADL dependence (OR, 1.9), poor physical function (OR, 1.9), and depression (OR, 2.5). Dual impairment was associated with IADL dependence (OR, 2.8), anxiety (OR, 2.3), depression (OR, 2.5), and cognitive impairment (OR, 3.2). CONCLUSIONS: Sensory impairment is common among older adults with cancer. Patients with sensory impairment are more likely to have functional, psychological, and cognitive deficits. Interventions aimed at improving the vision and hearing of older adults with cancer should be studied. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer (E1505): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) provides a modest survival benefit. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, improves outcomes when added to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced-stage non-squamous NSCLC. We aimed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage resected NSCLC. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and who had completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm) to IIIA (defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer 6th edition) NSCLC. We enrolled patients from across the US National Clinical Trials Network, including patients from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) affiliates in Europe and from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, within 6-12 weeks of surgery. The chemotherapy regimen for each patient was selected before randomisation and administered intravenously; it consisted of four 21-day cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2 on day 1 in all regimens) in combination with investigator's choice of vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), docetaxel (75 mg/m2 on day 1), gemcitabine (1200 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), or pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1). Patients in the bevacizumab group received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days starting with cycle 1 of chemotherapy and continuing for 1 year. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) to group A (chemotherapy alone) or group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab), centrally, using permuted blocks sizes and stratified by chemotherapy regimen, stage of disease, histology, and sex. No one was masked to treatment assignment, except the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00324805. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2007, and Sept 20, 2013, 1501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 749 to group A (chemotherapy alone) and 752 to group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab). 383 (26%) of 1458 patients (with complete staging information) had stage IB, 636 (44%) had stage II, and 439 (30%) had stage IIIA disease (stage of disease data were missing for 43 patients). Squamous cell histology was reported for 422 (28%) of 1501 patients. All four cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens were used: 377 (25%) patients received vinorelbine, 343 (23%) received docetaxel, 283 (19%) received gemcitabine, and 497 (33%) received pemetrexed. At a median follow-up of 50·3 months (IQR 32·9-68·0), the estimated median overall survival in group A has not been reached, and in group B was 85·8 months (95% CI 74·9 to not reached); hazard ratio (group B vs group A) 0·99 (95% CI 0·82-1·19; p=0·90). Grade 3-5 toxicities of note (all attributions) that were reported more frequently in group B (the bevacizumab group) than in group A (chemotherapy alone) were overall worst grade (ie, all grade 3-5 toxicities; 496 [67%] of 738 in group A vs 610 [83%] of 735 in group B), hypertension (60 [8%] vs 219 [30%]), and neutropenia (241 [33%] vs 275 [37%]). The number of deaths on treatment did not differ between the groups (15 deaths in group A vs 19 in group B). Of these deaths, three in group A and ten in group B were considered at least possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve overall survival for patients with surgically resected early-stage NSCLC. Bevacizumab does not have a role in this setting and should not be considered as an adjuvant therapy for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Improving Quality and Value of Cancer Care for Older Adults.

The concepts of quality and value have become ubiquitous in discussions about health care, including cancer care. Despite their prominence, these concepts remain difficult to encapsulate, with multiple definitions and frameworks emerging over the past few decades. Defining quality and value for the care of older adults with cancer can be particularly challenging. Older adults are heterogeneous and often excluded from clinical trials, severely limiting generalizable data for this population. Moreover, many frameworks for quality and value focus on traditional outcomes of survival and toxicity and neglect goals that may be more meaningful for older adults, such as quality of life and functional independence. A history of quality and value standards and an evaluation of some currently available standards and frameworks elucidate the potential gaps in application to older adults with cancer. However, narrowing the focus to processes of care presents several opportunities for improving the care of older adults with cancer now, even while further work is ongoing to evaluate outcomes and efficiency. New models of care, including the patient-centered medical home, as well as new associated bundled payment models, would be advantageous for older adults with cancer, facilitating collaboration, communication, and patient-centeredness and minimizing the fragmentation that impairs the current provision of cancer care. Advances in information technology support the foundation for these models of care; these technologies facilitate communication, increase available data, support shared decision making, and increase access to multidisciplinary specialty care. Further work will be needed to define and to continue to tailor processes of care to achieve relevant outcomes for older patients with cancer to fulfill the promise of quality and value of care for this vulnerable and growing population.

Implementing a pharmacist-led, individualized medication assessment and planning (iMAP) intervention to reduce medication related problems among older adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Medication-related problems (MRP) affecting older adults are a significant healthcare concern and account for billions in medication-related morbidity. Cancer therapies can increase the prevalence of MRP. The objective of this study was to test the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing a pharmacist-led individualized medication assessment and planning (iMAP) intervention on the number and prevalence of MRP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective pilot study enrolled oncology outpatients aged ≥65years. Intervention feasibility encompassed recommendation acceptance rate and intervention delivery time. The intervention was facilitated by pharmacists where patients received comprehensive medication management at baseline and at the 30- and 60-day follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-eight eligible patients enrolled and 41 patients (85.4%) were included in the analysis. Mean age was 79.1years [range 65-101]; 66% women, 83% Caucasian, mean comorbidity count was 7.76. Forty-six percent of the pharmacist recommendations were accepted and the prevalence of MRP at baseline versus 60-day follow-up decreased by 20.5%. The average time to conduct the initial session was 22min versus 15min for the follow-up sessions. Resources needed included a tracking system for scheduling follow-up calls and a database for tracking acceptance of recommendations. A total of 123 MRP were identified in 95% of patients (N=39) with a mean of 3 MRP per patient. The mean reduction in number of MRP (3 at baseline versus 1.6 at 60-day follow-up) was 45.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist-led iMAP intervention was feasible and effective at reducing MRP. Additional inter-professional medication safety based interventions measuring patient-reported outcomes are still needed.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Irinotecan/Docetaxel or Irinotecan/Docetaxel Plus Cetuximab for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the response rate in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated in first line with irinotecan/docetaxel combination (Arm A) or with irinotecan/docetaxel/cetuximab combination (Arm B). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and the rate of thromboembolic events with prophylactic enoxaparin sodium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were eligible who had measurable, metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, and normal bilirubin. All patients received anticoagulation. Docetaxel (35 mg/m) and irinotecan (50 mg/m) were administered once a week for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks rest (Arm A) alone or with the addition of cetuximab (Arm B). The primary endpoint was response rate. RESULTS: A total of 87 eligible patients were enrolled and treated. Grade 3/4 toxicity was observed in 74% of patients in Arm A and 76% in Arm B. The principal grade 3/4 toxicity was diarrhea. Response rates were 4.5% in Arm A and 7% in Arm B. Median PFS and OS were 3.9 and 6.5 months in Arm A and 4.5 and 5.4 months in Arm B. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel/irinotecan combination is associated with considerable toxicity. Objective responses were infrequent and addition of cetuximab in an unselected population was not beneficial, but PFS and OS were comparable with those achieved with other regimens. Docetaxel/irinotecan therapy is active in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Predictors of chemotherapy dose reduction at first cycle in patients age 65 years and older with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Age-based reduction of chemotherapy dose with the first cycle (primary dose reduction, PDR) is not routinely guideline recommended. Few studies, however, have evaluated how frequently PDR is utilized in the treatment of older patients with cancer and which factors may be associated with this decision. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multi-institutional prospective cohort study of patients age ≥65 years treated with chemotherapy. The dose and regimen were at the discretion of the treating oncologist. The prevalence of PDR and its association with treatment intent (palliative vs. curative), tumor type, patient characteristics (sociodemographics and geriatric assessment variables), and chemotherapy-associated toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 500 patients (mean age 73, range 65-91 years), 179 patients received curative intent chemotherapy and 321 patients received palliative intent chemotherapy, with PDR being more common in the latter sub-group (15% vs. 25%, p = 0.005). Increasing age was independently associated with PDR in both sub-groups. Comorbidity (prior cancer or liver/kidney disease) was independently associated with PDR in the palliative sub-group alone while Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) was not associated with PDR in either subgroup. There was no significant difference in the rates of grades 3-5 toxicity, dose reductions, or delays with PDR. Patients in the palliative sub-group treated with PDR had higher rates of hospitalization compared to those treated with standard doses. CONCLUSION: PDR is more common in the palliative setting, but is also utilized among patients treated with curative intent. Factors associated with PDR include age and comorbid conditions, but not KPS.

Development of a comprehensive multidisciplinary geriatric oncology center, the Thomas Jefferson University Experience.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of older patients with cancer is expected to grow exponentially in the next two decades. This population has large heterogeneity and it is well known that chronologic age is a poor predictor of outcomes. Research has shown that these patients are best served with a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) to formulate individualized treatment plans for better outcomes. However, the best model for CGA has yet to be determined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our objective was to develop a highly functional model for the establishment of a comprehensive multidisciplinary geriatric oncology center in the setting of a university based NCI-designated cancer center. Each patient is evaluated by medical oncology, geriatric medicine, pharmacy, social work and nutrition. Expert navigation is provided to enhance the patient experience. At the conclusion, the inter-professional team meets to review each case and formulate a comprehensive treatment plan. The patient is classified as Fit, Vulnerable, or Frail based on the complete CGA. RESULTS: The average age of patients seen was 80.7 with the most common diagnoses being breast, colorectal and lung cancers. Twenty four percent of patients were determined to be Fit, 47% Vulnerable, and 29% Frail. Twenty one percent of patients determined to be Frail by CGA received an ECOG score of 0-1 by the oncologist. Our pharmacists made specific recommendations in over 75% of patients and social work provided assistance in over 50% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to observe some interesting trends such as potential discordance with ECOG score and assessment of Fit/Vulnerable/Frail but due to limitations in the data, this paper is not able to illustrate definitive correlations. Several challenges with the development of the clinic include 1) patient related issues, 2) navigation, 3) financial reimbursement, 4) referral patterns, and 5) coordination of care during office hours. We feel that we have been able to establish a model for a comprehensive multidisciplinary geriatric oncology evaluation center in the setting of a university based cancer center.