[Frailty in Oncology: Updated Recommendations for Clinical Practice]. / Frailty in der Onkologie: Neue Handlungsempfehlungen für die klinische Praxis.

Frailty is a clinical condition associated with aging and resulting in increased risk of adverse outcomes upon exogenous or endogenous stressors. In oncology, cancer treatment itself can be a stressor event. In older cancer patients, frailty therefore not only enhances the probability of age-related health events such as institutionalization or falls, but also of treatment complications such as toxicity and interruption or discontinuation of therapy. As demonstrated by recent randomized-controlled trials conducted in older cancer patients receiving systemic treatment, the evaluation of frailty by geriatric assessment (GA) followed by an adjustment of the oncological therapy as well as targeted frailty interventions help to improve cancer treatment tolerability and feasibility. Based on these data, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) updated the clinical practice guidelines for the assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older adults receiving systemic cancer therapy. The guideline recommends the use of a new GA-tool named 'practical geriatric assessment' (PGA) to foster the implementation of GA-based frailty assessment and management in routine cancer care. This article describes the background and key aspects of these recent advances.

A refined ICD-10 diagnoses-based approach for retrospective analysis of potential palliative care need and coverage in claims data of deceased.

Objectives: ICD-10-based approaches often provide the basis for retrospective estimation of potential palliative care need. Applying the ICD-10-based Murtagh et al. classification from 2014 (Murtagh classification), developed using mortality data, to administrative claims data leads to inconsistencies in estimating palliative care need. The aim of the study was to refine the classification for palliative care need estimation in deceased individuals with cancer and non-cancer diagnosis. Methods: A retrospective population-based study comparing Murtagh classification to a new ICD-10-based classification (revised by expert opinion) was conducted using outpatient and inpatient claims data, including billing codes for palliative care. Palliative care need was estimated for diagnoses groups and was contrasted with palliative care utilization rates in the last year of life. Our dataset included records of 417,405 individuals who deceased in 2016-2019. Results: Out of individuals deceased in 2019 (n = 117,436), 81.4% had at least one diagnosis from the new classification, while 97.0% had at least one diagnosis from the Murtagh classification. Classification revision thus identified fewer individuals as potentially in need of palliative care. Among individuals with cancer, 70.7% (vs. 55.7% via Murtagh classification) received palliative care. In non-cancer subgroups, the utilization rate was considerably lower, with a maximum of 36.7% (vs. 33.7% via Murtagh classification) in 2019. Similar results were observed for the other years. Conclusion: Compared to the ICD10-based Murtagh classification, the revised ICD-10-based classification enables more realistic estimations if the cause of death is unavailable and reveals higher rates of palliative care coverage and differences especially in cancer versus non-cancer diseases. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00024133).

Benchmarking palliative care practices in neurooncology: a german perspective.

PURPOSE: To benchmark palliative care practices in neurooncology centers across Germany, evaluating the variability in palliative care integration, timing, and involvement in tumor board discussions. This study aims to identify gaps in care and contribute to the discourse on optimal palliative care strategies. METHODS: A survey targeting both German Cancer Society-certified and non-certified university neurooncology centers was conducted to explore palliative care frameworks and practices for neurooncological patients. The survey included questions on palliative care department availability, involvement in tumor boards, timing of palliative care integration, and use of standardized screening tools for assessing palliative burden and psycho-oncological distress. RESULTS: Of 57 centers contacted, 46 responded (81% response rate). Results indicate a dedicated palliative care department in 76.1% of centers, with palliative specialists participating in tumor board discussions at 34.8% of centers. Variability was noted in the initiation of palliative care, with early integration at the diagnosis stage in only 30.4% of centers. The survey highlighted a significant lack of standardized spiritual care assessments and minimal use of advanced care planning. Discrepancies were observed in the documentation and treatment of palliative care symptoms and social complaints, underscoring the need for comprehensive care approaches. CONCLUSION: The study highlights a diverse landscape of palliative care provision within German neurooncology centers, underscoring the need for more standardized practices and early integration of palliative care. It suggests the necessity for standardized protocols and guidelines to enhance palliative care's quality and uniformity, ultimately improving patient-centered care in neurooncology.

Perceptions of Quality of Interprofessional Collaboration, Staff Well-Being and Nonbeneficial Treatment: A Comparison between Nurses and Physicians in Intensive and Palliative Care.

This study assessed differences in interprofessional collaboration, perception of nonbeneficial care, and staff well-being between critical care and palliative care teams. In six German hospitals, a staff survey was conducted between December 2013 and March 2015 among nurses and physicians in intensive and palliative care units. To allow comparability between unit types, a matching was performed for demographic characteristics of staff. N = 313 critical care and 79 palliative care staff participated, of which 72 each were successfully matched. Critical care nurses perceived the poorest overall quality of collaboration compared with critical care physicians and palliative care physicians and nurses. They also reported less inclusive leadership from attendings and head nurses, and the least collaboration on care decisions with physicians. They were most likely to perceive nonbeneficial care, and they reported the lowest levels of job satisfaction and the highest intention to leave the job. In partial correlations, aspects of high-quality collaboration were associated with less perceived nonbeneficial care and higher staff well-being for both critical care and palliative care staff. Our findings indicate that critical care teams could improve collaboration and enhance well-being, particularly among nurses, by adopting principles of collaborative work culture as established in palliative care.

Prioritization and Resource Allocation in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations for Colorectal and Pancreatic Cancer in Germany.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scarcity of resources with various effects on the care of cancer patients. This paper provides an English summary of a German guideline on prioritization and resource allocation for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the context of the pandemic. Based on a selective literature review as well as empirical and ethical analyses, the research team of the CancerCOVID Consortium drafted recommendations for prioritizing diagnostic and treatment measures for both entities. The final version of the guideline received consent from the executive boards of nine societies of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), 20 further professional organizations and 22 other experts from various disciplines as well as patient representatives. The guiding principle for the prioritization of decisions is the minimization of harm. Prioritization decisions to fulfill this overall goal should be guided by (1) the urgency relevant to avoid or reduce harm, (2) the likelihood of success of the diagnostic or therapeutic measure advised, and (3) the availability of alternative treatment options. In the event of a relevant risk of harm as a result of prioritization, these decisions should be made by means of a team approach. Gender, age, disability, ethnicity, origin, and other social characteristics, such as social or insurance status, as well as the vehemence of a patient's treatment request and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status should not be used as prioritization criteria. The guideline provides concrete recommendations for (1) diagnostic procedures, (2) surgical procedures for cancer, and (3) systemic treatment and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer within the context of the German healthcare system.

Palliative care for patients with hematologic malignancies in Germany: a nationwide survey on everyday practice and influencing factors from the perspective of treating physicians.

Integrating palliative care into the treatment of patients with advanced hematological malignancies (HM) remains challenging. To explore treating physicians' perspectives on current palliative care practice and to evaluate factors influencing integration, we conducted a nationwide online survey. Based on literature and expert review, the survey addressed the importance of palliative care, communication about life-threatening conditions, challenges in establishing goals of care, and factors influencing the integration of palliative care. 207 physicians treating patients with HM in Germany participated. We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data and a content structuring approach. Most physicians considered palliative care in HM to be very important (60.6%) and discussed life-threatening conditions with more than half of their patients (52%), especially when goals of care were changed (87.0%) or when patients raised the topic (84.0%). Disease-related factors, different professional perspectives on prognosis, and patient hopes were the main barriers to changing goals of care, but collaboration with colleagues and multidisciplinary teams provided important support. Time constraints were identified as the main barrier to integrating palliative care. The majority worked well with palliative care teams. Referral processes and conditions were perceived as minor barriers. The study highlights the need to address barriers to integrating palliative care into the management of patients with advanced HM. Future research should aim at optimizing palliative care for patients with HM.

Leave no one behind: A global survey of the current state of geriatric oncology practice by SIOG national representatives.

INTRODUCTION: The Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations include a commitment to "leave no one behind" as a universal goal. To achieve this in geriatric oncology (GO) worldwide, it is important to understand the current state of GO at an international level. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) has several National Representatives (NRs) who act as SIOG's delegates in their respective countries. The NRs took part in this international survey exploring the state of GO practice, identifying barriers and solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NRs answered open-ended questions by email from February 2020 to October 2022. The questionnaire domains included the demographic information of older adults for their countries, and the NRs' opinions on whether GO is developing, what the barriers are to developing GO, and proposed actions to remove these barriers. The demographic data of each country reported in the survey was adjusted using literature and database searches. RESULTS: Twenty-one of thirty countries with NRs (70%) participated in this questionnaire study: 12 European, four Asian, two North American, two South American, and one Oceanian. The proportion of the population aged ≥75 years varied from 2.2% to 15.8%, and the average life expectancy also varied from 70 years to 86 years. All NRs reported that GO was developing in their country; four NRs (18%) reported that GO was well developed. Although all NRs agreed that geriatric assessment was useful, only three reported that it was used day-to-day in their countries' clinical practice (14%). The major barriers identified were the lack of (i) evidence to support GO use, (ii) awareness and interest in GO, and (iii) resources (time, manpower, and funding). The major proposed actions were to (i) provide new evidence through clinical trials specific for GO patients, (ii) stimulate awareness through networking, and (iii) deliver educational materials and information to healthcare providers and medical students. DISCUSSION: This current survey has identified the barriers to GO and proposed actions that could remove them. Broader awareness seems to be essential to implementing GO. Additional actions are needed to develop GO within countries and can be supported through international partnerships.