A scoping review evaluating physical and cognitive functional outcomes in cancer survivors treated with chemotherapy: charting progress since the 2018 NCI think tank on cancer and aging phenotypes.

PURPOSE: The primary goal of this scoping review was to summarize the literature published after the 2018 National Cancer Institute think tank, "Measuring Aging and Identifying Aging Phenotypes in Cancer Survivors," on physical and cognitive functional outcomes among cancer survivors treated with chemotherapy. We focused on the influence of chemotherapy on aging-related outcomes (i.e., physical functional outcomes, cognitive functional outcomes, and frailty), given the known associations between chemotherapy and biologic mechanisms that affect aging-related physiologic processes. METHODS: A search was conducted across electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, for manuscripts published between August 2018 and July 2023. Eligible studies: 1) included physical function, cognitive function, and/or frailty as outcomes; 2) included cancer survivors (as either the whole sample or a subgroup); 3) reported on physical or cognitive functional outcomes and/or frailty related to chemotherapy treatment (as either the whole sample or a subgroup); and 4) were observational in study design. RESULTS: The search yielded 989 potentially relevant articles, of which 65 met the eligibility criteria. Of the 65 studies, 49 were longitudinal, and 16 were cross-sectional; 30 studies (46%) focused on breast cancer, 20 studies (31%) focused on the age group 60 + years, and 17 (26%) focused on childhood cancer survivors. With regards to outcomes, 82% of 23 studies reporting on physical function showed reduced physical function, 74% of 39 studies reporting on cognitive functional outcomes found reduced cognitive function, and 80% of 15 studies reporting on frailty found increasing frailty among cancer survivors treated with chemotherapy over time and/or compared to individuals not treated with chemotherapy. Fourteen studies (22%) evaluated biologic mechanisms and their relationship to aging-related outcomes. Inflammation was consistently associated with worsening physical and cognitive functional outcomes and epigenetic age increases. Further, DNA damage was consistently associated with worse aging-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy is associated with reduced physical function, reduced cognitive function, and an increase in frailty in cancer survivors; these associations were demonstrated in longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. Inflammation and epigenetic age acceleration are associated with worse physical and cognitive function; prospective observational studies with multiple time points are needed to confirm these findings. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This scoping review highlights the need for interventions to prevent declines in physical and cognitive function in cancer survivors who have received chemotherapy.

A scoping review of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in the outcomes of older adults with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer health disparities are widespread. Nevertheless, the disparities in outcomes among diverse survivors of cancer ages 65 years and older ("older") have not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of original research articles published between January 2016 and September 2023 and indexed in Medline (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. We included studies evaluating racial, ethnic, socioeconomic disadvantaged, geographic, sexual and gender, and/or persons with disabilities disparities in treatment, survivorship, and mortality among older survivors of cancer. We excluded studies with no a priori aims related to a health disparity, review articles, conference proceedings, meeting abstracts, studies with unclear methodologies, and articles in which the disparity group was examined only as an analytic covariate. Two reviewers independently extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis reporting guidelines. RESULTS: After searching and removing duplicates, 2573 unique citations remained and after screening 59 articles met the inclusion criteria. Many investigated more than one health disparity, and most focused on racial and ethnic (n = 44) or socioeconomic (n = 25) disparities; only 10 studies described geographic disparities, and none evaluated disparities in persons with disabilities or due to sexual and gender identity. Research investigating disparities in outcomes among diverse older survivors of cancer is increasing gradually-68% of eligible articles were published between 2020 and 2023. Most studies focused on the treatment phase of care (n = 28) and mortality (n = 26), with 16 examined disparities in survivorship, symptoms, or quality of life. Most research was descriptive and lacked analyses of potential underlying mechanisms contributing to the reported disparities. CONCLUSION: Little research has evaluated the effect of strategies to reduce health disparities among older patients with cancer. This lack of evidence perpetuates cancer inequities and leaves the cancer care system ill equipped to address the unique needs of the rapidly growing and increasingly diverse older adult cancer population.

Development and Evaluation of a Multisource Approach to Extend Mortality Follow-Up for Older Adults With Advanced Cancer Enrolled in Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: Mortality data can complement primary end points from cancer clinical trials. Yet, identifying deaths after trial completion is challenging, as timely and comprehensive vital status data are unavailable in the United States. We developed and evaluated a multisource approach to capture death data after clinical trial completion. METHODS: Individuals age 70 years and older with incurable solid tumors or lymphoma and ≥1 aging-related condition were enrolled from October 2014 to March 2019 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443 and NCT02054741). Participants provided consent to link trial information to external sources. We developed a stepped approach for extended death capture using (1) active trial follow-up up to 1 year, (2) linkage to the National Death Index (NDI), and (3) obituary searches, thus generating a 5-year survival curve. In a random sample of 50 participants who died during trial follow-up, we estimated sensitivity of death data using NDI and obituary sources and computed survival times by data source. RESULTS: The two trials enrolled 1,169 participants; mean age was 76 years; 46% were female; and gastrointestinal cancer (30%) and lung cancer (26%) were the most common cancer types. Across data sources, maximum follow-up was >7 years; 5-year survival was 18%. In total, there were 841 deaths: 603 identified during trial follow-up; 199 from the NDI; and 39 from obituary searches. The sensitivity for death capture was 92% for the NDI and 94% for the obituary searches compared with the trial data, and computed survival times were similar across data sources. CONCLUSION: Extending clinical trial mortality follow-up through linkage with external data sources was feasible and accurate. Future cancer clinical trials should collect necessary consent and patient identifiers for vital status linkages that can enhance understanding of longer-term outcomes.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care. METHODS: We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad." CONCLUSION: Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

High-dose vitamin D to attenuate bone loss in patients with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: A phase 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) inhibits prostate cancer growth. However, ADT causes loss of bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in fracture risk; effective interventions for ADT-induced bone loss are limited. METHODS: A phase 2 randomized controlled trial investigated the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of high-dose weekly vitamin D (HDVD, 50,000 IU/week) versus placebo for 24 weeks in patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT, with all subjects receiving 600 IU/day vitamin D and 1000 mg/day calcium. Participants were ≥60 years (mean years, 67.7), had a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level <32 ng/mL, and initiated ADT within the previous 6 months. At baseline and after intervention, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to assess BMD, and levels of bone cell, bone formation, and resorption were measured. RESULTS: The HDVD group (N = 29) lost 1.5% BMD at the total hip vs. 4.1% for the low-dose group (N = 30; p = .03) and 1.7% BMD at the femoral neck vs. 4.4% in the low-dose group (p = .06). Stratified analyses showed that, for those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level <27 ng/mL, the HDVD group lost 2.3% BMD at the total hip vs 7.1% for the low-dose group (p < .01). Those in the HDVD arm showed significant changes in parathyroid hormone (p < .01), osteoprotegerin (p < 0.01), N-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (p < 0.01) and C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (p < 0.01). No difference in adverse events or toxicity was noted between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: HDVD supplementation significantly reduced hip and femoral neck BMD loss, especially for patients with low baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, although demonstrating safety and feasibility in prostate cancer patients on ADT.

Decreasing polypharmacy in older adults with cancer: A pilot cluster-randomized trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy is prevalent in older adults with cancer and associated with multiple adverse outcomes. A single-site, cluster-randomized clinical trial will enroll older adults with cancer and polypharmacy starting chemotherapy and will assess the effectiveness and feasibility of deprescribing interventions by comparing two arms: a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention and a patient educational brochure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study will be conducted in two phases. In phase I, focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews will guide adaptation of deprescribing interventions for the oncology clinic (phase Ia), and eight patients will undergo the pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention with iterative adaptations (phase Ib). In phase II, a pilot cluster-randomized trial (n = 72) will compare a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention with a patient education brochure, with treating oncologists as the cluster. Both efficacy (relative dose intensity of planned chemotherapy, potentially inappropriate medications successfully deprescribed, chemotherapy toxicity, functional status, hospitalizations, falls, and symptoms) and implementation outcomes (barriers and facilitators) will be assessed. DISCUSSION: This study is anticipated to provide pilot data to inform a nationwide randomized clinical trial of deprescribing in older adults starting cancer treatment. The cluster randomization is intended to provide an initial estimate for the intervention effect as well as oncologists' intra-class correlation coefficient. Deprescribing interventions may improve outcomes in older adults starting cancer treatment, but these interventions are understudied in this population, and it is unknown how best to implement them into oncology practice. The results of this trial will inform the design of large, randomized phase III trials of deprescribing. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier:NCT05046171. Date of registration: September 16, 2021.

Primary Treatment Modification and Treatment Tolerability Among Older Chemotherapy Recipients With Advanced Cancer.

Importance: Older adults with advanced cancer are less likely to tolerate treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy compared with younger patients due to their aging-related conditions. Hence, oncologists sometimes opt to employ primary treatment modifications (deviation from standard of care) during the first cycle of chemotherapy. Objective: To examine the association between primary treatment modification and treatment tolerability in older adults with advanced cancer who were starting new palliative chemotherapy regimens. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a secondary analysis of the GAP70+ (Geriatric Assessment Intervention for Reducing Toxicity in Older Patients with Advanced Cancer) trial, which was conducted between July 2014 and March 2019. The GAP70+ trial included patients aged 70 years or older who had advanced (ie, incurable) cancer, had 1 or more geriatric assessment domain impairments, and planned to start a new palliative chemotherapy regimen. Data analysis was conducted in November 2022. Exposures: Receipt of standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens vs primary treatment modification defined as any change from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines or published clinical trials (eg, primary dose reduction, schedule change). Main Outcomes and Measures: Tolerability outcomes were assessed within 3 months of treatment. These outcomes included the following: (1) any grade 3 to 5 toxic effect, according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; (2) patient-reported functional decline, defined as the development of worse dependency in activities of daily living using scale scores; and (3) a composite adverse outcome (an end point that combined toxic effects, functional decline, and 6-month overall survival). Multivariable cluster-weighted generalized estimating equation models examined the association between primary treatment modification and outcomes adjusting for covariates. Results: This study included 609 patients with a mean (SD) age of 77.2 (5.2) years; more than half (333 [54.7%]) were men. Race and ethnicity was available for 607 patients: 39 (6.4%) were Black, 539 (88.5%) were non-Hispanic White, and 29 (4.8%) were of other race or ethnicity. Nearly half (281 [46.1%]) received a primary modified treatment regimen. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal cancer (228 [37.4%]) and lung cancer (174 [28.6%]). In multivariable analysis, primary treatment modification was associated with a reduced risk of grade 3 to 5 toxic effects (relative risk [RR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.94]) and functional decline (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]). Patients who received primary treatment modification had 32.0% lower odds of having a worse composite adverse outcome (odds ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.48-0.97]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, primary treatment modification was associated with improved tolerability of chemotherapeutic regimens among older adults with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions. These findings may help optimize cancer treatment dosing in older adults with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions.

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative.

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

Co-Designing an Initiative to Increase Shared Access to Older Adults' Patient Portals: Stakeholder Engagement.

BACKGROUND: The patient portal is a widely available secure digital platform offered by care delivery organizations that enables patients to communicate electronically with clinicians and manage their care. Many organizations allow patients to authorize family members or friends-"care partners"-to share access to patient portal accounts, thus enabling care partners to receive their own identity credentials. Shared access facilitates trilateral information exchange among patients, clinicians, and care partners; however, uptake and awareness of this functionality are limited. OBJECTIVE: We partnered with 3 health care organizations to co-design an initiative that aimed to increase shared access registration and use and that can be implemented using existing patient portals. METHODS: In 2020, we undertook a rigorous selection process to identify 3 geographically diverse health care organizations that had engaged medical informatics teams and clinical champions within service delivery lines caring for older adults. We prioritized selecting organizations that serve racially and socioeconomically diverse populations and possess sophisticated reporting capabilities, a stable patient portal platform, a sufficient volume of older adult patients, and active patient and family advisory councils. Along with patients and care partners, clinicians, staff, and other stakeholders, the study team co-designed an initiative to increase the uptake of shared access guided by either an iterative, human-centered design process or rapid assessment procedures of stakeholders' inputs. RESULTS: Between February 2020 and April 2022, 73 stakeholder engagements were conducted with patients and care partners, clinicians and clinic staff, medical informatics teams, marketing and communications staff, and administrators, as well as with funders and thought leaders. We collected insights regarding (1) barriers to awareness, registration, and use of shared access; (2) features of consumer-facing educational materials to address identified barriers; (3) features of clinician- and staff-facing materials to address identified barriers; and (4) approaches to fit the initiative into current workflows. Using these inputs iteratively via a human-centered design process, we produced brochures and posters, co-designed organization-specific web pages detailing shared access registration processes, and developed clinician and staff talking points about shared access and staff tip sheets that outline shared access registration steps. Educational materials emphasized the slogan "People remember less than half of what their doctors say," which was selected from 9 candidate alternatives as resonating best with the full range of the initiative's stakeholders. The materials were accompanied by implementation toolkits specifying and reinforcing workflows involving both in-person and telehealth visits. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement allowed our deliberate, iterative, and human-centered co-design aimed at increasing the use of shared access. Our initiative has been launched as a part of a 12-month demonstration that will include quantitative and qualitative analysis of registration and use of shared access. Educational materials are publicly available at Coalition for Care Partners.

Emotional barriers and facilitators of deprescribing for older adults with cancer and polypharmacy: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To describe emotional barriers and facilitators to deprescribing (the planned reduction or discontinuation of medications) in older adults with cancer and polypharmacy. METHODS: Virtual focus groups were conducted over Zoom with 5 key informant groups: oncologists, oncology nurses, primary care physicians, pharmacists, and patients. All groups were video- and audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis, and open coding was performed by two coders. A codebook was generated based on the initial round of open coding and updated throughout the analytic process. Codes and themes were discussed for each transcript until consensus was reached. Emotion coding (identifying text segments expressing emotion, naming the emotion, and assigning a label of positive or negative) was performed by both coders to validate the open coding findings. RESULTS: All groups agreed that polypharmacy is a significant problem. For clinicians, emotional barriers to deprescribing include fear of moral judgment from patients and colleagues, frustration toward patients, and feelings of incompetence. Oncologists and patients expressed ambivalence about deprescribing due to role expectations that physicians "heal with med[ication]s." Emotional facilitators of deprescribing included the involvement of pharmacists, who were perceived to be neutral, discerning experts. Pharmacists described emotionally aware communication strategies when discussing deprescribing with other clinicians and expressed increased awareness of patient context. CONCLUSION: Deprescribing can elicit strong and predominantly negative emotions among clinicians and patients which could inhibit deprescribing interventions. The involvement of pharmacists in deprescribing interventions could mitigate these emotional barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05046171 . Date of registration: September 16, 2021.

Factors associated with the evaluation of geriatric assessment (GA) domains by oncology specialists in Mexico.

The use of geriatric assessment (GA) by oncology specialists in Mexico is low. We aimed to explore factors associated with the evaluation of individual GA domains by Mexican oncology specialists. We performed an exploratory analysis of a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study consisting of an online cross-sectional survey of Mexican oncology specialists and follow-up interviews on the use of GA in cancer care. For each GA domain, we performed multivariable logistic regression analyses with the frequency of evaluation of the domains as the dependent variable (dichotomised as never/rarely/sometimes versus most of the time/always). A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Qualitative data from the interviews were analysed inductively. Of 196 respondents, 62% were male, 50% were surgical oncologists, 51% took care of >10 patients per day and 61.7% had access to a geriatrician. Self-perceived confidence in managing common geriatric conditions was associated with the evaluation of specific GA domains. For instance, self-perceived confidence in managing dementia (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.42-5.51, p = 0.008) was associated with cognition evaluation, while for evaluation of falls, self-perceived confidence in evaluation of falls (OR 6.31; 95% CI 3.19-12.46, p < 0.001) was significantly associated. Follow-up interviews showed quality and appropriateness of evaluations may not be ideal: in many cases, physicians do not use guideline-recommended tools. For example, evaluation of cognition is commonly performed through non-validated methods which may miss the detection of patients with an impairment in this domain, partly due to limitations in knowledge and time to use recommended tools. In conclusion, self-perceived confidence in evaluating and managing common situations in older adults was associated with the evaluation of GA domains as part of everyday practice in a sample of oncology specialists in Mexico. This analysis supports the use of educational interventions to boost knowledge and confidence regarding the proper use of validated GA tools among oncology specialists.

Modifiable fall risk factors among older adults with advanced cancer: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with cancer have unique fall risk factors related to their disease and treatment such as polypharmacy and neurotoxic treatments. In this secondary analysis, we identified modifiable risk factors associated with future falls among older adults with advanced cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were from the COACH study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02107443; PI: Mohile). Patients were age ≥ 70, had stage III/IV solid tumor or lymphoma, ≥1 geriatric assessment impairment, and were receiving palliative intent treatment. Falls were self-reported at baseline (in the past six months), four to six weeks, three months, and six months. We generated inverse probability weights to account for mortality-related loss to follow-up and applied these in generalized linear mixed models to estimate incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: Of 541 patients (mean age: 77, standard deviation [SD]: 5.27), 140 (26%) reported prior falls at baseline, and 467 (86%) had falls data for ≥1 follow-up timepoint. Of those, 103 (22%) reported at least one fall during the follow-up period, and 112 (24%) had incomplete follow-up due to death. In fully adjusted models, prior falls and impaired Timed Up and Go score were associated with higher incidence of falls over 6 months. DISCUSSION: We identified several potentially modifiable fall risk factors in older adults with advanced cancers. Future studies should consider ways to integrate fall risk assessment into ongoing cancer care and intervene to reduce falls in this population.

Cancer survivorship challenges of rural older adults: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although research has advanced the field of oncologic geriatrics with survivors to assess their cancer-related needs and devise patient-centered interventions, most of that research has excluded rural populations. This study aimed to understand the survivorship challenges and recommendations in the perspective of rural older adults. METHODS: This was a qualitative study that explored the survivorship challenges and recommendations of rural older adults who have completed curative intent chemotherapy for a solid tumor malignancy in the 12 months prior to enrollment in the present study. RESULTS: Twenty-seven older adult survivors from rural areas completed open-ended semi-structured interviews. The mean age was 73.4 (SD = 5.0). Most participants were non-Hispanic White (96.3%), female (59.3%), married (63.0%), and had up to a high school education (51.9%). Rural older survivors reported a general lack of awareness of survivorship care plans, communication challenges with healthcare team, transportation challenges, financial toxicity, psychological challenges, and diet and physical challenges. Rural older survivors recommend the provision of nutritional advice referral to exercise programs, and social support groups and for their healthcare providers to discuss their survivorship plan with them. CONCLUSIONS: Although study participants reported similar survivorship challenges as urban older adult survivors, additional challenges reported regarding transportation and consideration of farm animals have not been previously reported. Heightened awareness of the survivorship needs of rural older adults may result in better survivorship care for this population.

Information Technology and Telemedicine Services in Community Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: We described information technology support and use of telemedicine for cancer care and research purposes at community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). METHODS: We used data from the NCORP 2017 and 2022 Landscape Assessments. Separate logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with the use of telemedicine for delivery of cancer care in 2017 and for research purposes in 2022 (cancer care delivery not assessed in 2022). RESULTS: Information was available from 210 and 259 practice groups excluding pediatric-only groups in 2017 and 2022, respectively. In 2017, 30% of practice groups used telemedicine for delivery of cancer care; half of these (15% overall) could use telemedicine for research purposes. In 2022, telemedicine was used for research purposes in 73% of practice groups. In multivariable models, self-identifying as a safety-net hospital was associated with a lower odd of telemedicine use for delivery of cancer care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.93), whereas affiliation with a designated critical access hospital was associated with a higher odd of telemedicine use for delivery of cancer care (AOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.76). Having a general survivorship clinic (AOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.54) and number of oncology providers (increase per 10 providers; AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.65) were associated with telemedicine use for research purposes. CONCLUSION: Almost one third of NCORP practice groups used telemedicine for cancer care delivery in 2017. In 2022, there is high capacity among NCORP practices (almost three-quarters) to use telemedicine for research purposes, especially among practices with a general survivorship clinic and a greater provider number.

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.