Search

Abstract Background Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) improve outcomes in older patients with cancer treated with surgery or chemotherapy. It is unclear whether GAM may provide better function and quality of life (QoL), or be cost-effective, in a radiotherapy (RT) setting. Methods In this Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study, we assessed the impact of a GAM intervention involving specialist and primary health services. It was initiated in-hospital at the start of RT by assessing somatic and mental health, function, and social situation, followed by individually adapted management plans and systematic follow-up in the municipalities until 8 weeks after the end of RT, managed by municipal nurses as patients’ care coordinators. Thirty-two municipal/city districts were 1:1 randomised to intervention or conventional care. Patients with cancer ≥ 65 years, referred for RT, were enrolled irrespective of cancer type, treatment intent, and frailty status, and followed the allocation of their residential district. The primary outcome was physical function measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes were overall quality of life (QoL), physical performance, use and costs of health services. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Study registration at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03881137. Results We included 178 patients, 89 in each group with comparable age (mean 74.1), sex (female 38.2%), and Edmonton Frail Scale scores (mean 3.4 [scale 0–17], scores 0–3 [fit] in 57%). More intervention patients received curative RT (76.4 vs 61.8%), had higher irradiation doses (mean 54.1 vs 45.5 Gy), and longer lasting RT (mean 4.4 vs 3.6 weeks). The primary outcome was completed by 91% (intervention) vs 88% (control) of patients. No significant differences between groups on predefined outcomes were observed. GAM costs represented 3% of health service costs for the intervention group during the study period. Conclusions In this heterogeneous cohort of older patients receiving RT, the majority was fit. We found no impact of the intervention on patient-centred outcomes or the cost of health services. Targeting a more homogeneous group of only pre-frail and frail patients is strongly recommended in future studies needed to clarify the role and organisation of GAM in RT settings.

Background: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) improve outcomes in older patients with cancer treated with surgery or chemotherapy. It is unclear whether GAM may provide better function and quality of life (QoL), or be cost-effective, in a radiotherapy (RT) setting. Methods: In this Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study, we assessed the impact of a GAM intervention involving specialist and primary health services. It was initiated in-hospital at the start of RT by assessing somatic and mental health, function, and social situation, followed by individually adapted management plans and systematic follow-up in the municipalities until 8 weeks after the end of RT, managed by municipal nurses as patients' care coordinators. Thirty-two municipal/city districts were 1:1 randomised to intervention or conventional care. Patients with cancer ≥ 65 years, referred for RT, were enrolled irrespective of cancer type, treatment intent, and frailty status, and followed the allocation of their residential district. The primary outcome was physical function measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes were overall quality of life (QoL), physical performance, use and costs of health services. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Study registration at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03881137. Results: We included 178 patients, 89 in each group with comparable age (mean 74.1), sex (female 38.2%), and Edmonton Frail Scale scores (mean 3.4 [scale 0–17], scores 0–3 [fit] in 57%). More intervention patients received curative RT (76.4 vs 61.8%), had higher irradiation doses (mean 54.1 vs 45.5 Gy), and longer lasting RT (mean 4.4 vs 3.6 weeks). The primary outcome was completed by 91% (intervention) vs 88% (control) of patients. No significant differences between groups on predefined outcomes were observed. GAM costs represented 3% of health service costs for the intervention group during the study period. Conclusions: In this heterogeneous cohort of older patients receiving RT, the majority was fit. We found no impact of the intervention on patient-centred outcomes or the cost of health services. Targeting a more homogeneous group of only pre-frail and frail patients is strongly recommended in future studies needed to clarify the role and organisation of GAM in RT settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

About 50% of patients with cancer are expected to need radiotherapy (RT), and the majority of these are older. To improve outcomes for older patients with cancer, geriatric assessment (GA) with management (GAM) is highly recommended. Evidence for its benefits is still scarce, in particular for patients receiving RT. We report the protocol of a cluster-randomised pilot study designed to test the effect, feasibility and health economic impact of a GAM intervention for patients ≥65 years, referred for palliative or curative RT. The randomising units are municipalities and city districts. The intervention is municipality-based and carried out in collaboration between hospital and municipal health services from the start of RT to eight weeks after the end of RT. Its main constituents are an initial GA followed by measures adapted to individual patients' impairments and needs, systematic symptom assessments and regular follow-up by municipal cancer nurses, appointed to coordinate the patient's care. Follow-up includes at least one weekly phone call, and a house call four weeks after the end of RT. All patients receive an individually adapted physical exercise program and nutritional counselling. Detailed guidelines for management of patients' impairments are provided. Patients allocated to the intervention group will be compared to controls receiving standard care. The primary outcome is physical function assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30. Secondary outcomes are global quality of life, objectively tested physical performance and use of health care services. Economic evaluation will be based on a comparison of costs and effects (measured by the main outcome measures). Feasibility will be assessed with mixed methodology, based on log notes and questionnaires filled in by the municipal nurses and interviews with patients and nurses. The study is carried out at two Norwegian RT centres. It was opened in May 2019. Follow-up will proceed until June 2022. Statistical analyses will start by the end of 2021. We expect the trial to provide important new knowledge about the effect, feasibility and costs of a GAM intervention for older patients receiving RT. Trial registration : ClinTrials.gov , ID NCT03881137 , initial release 13th of March 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older adults receiving cancer therapy have heightened risk for treatment-related toxicity. Geriatric assessment (GA) can identify impairments, which may contribute to vulnerability and adverse outcomes. GA management interventions can address these impairments and have the potential to improve outcomes when implemented.Methods: We conducted a randomized pilot study comparing GA with management interventions versus usual care in patients with stage III/IV solid tumor malignancies (N = 71). In all patients, a trained coordinator conducted and scored a baseline GA with pre-determined cutoffs for impairment. For patients randomized to the intervention arm, an algorithm was used to identify GA management recommendations based upon identified impairments. Recommendations were relayed to the primary oncologist for implementation. GA was repeated at 3 months. The primary outcome was grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, hospitalizations, dose reductions, dose delays, and early treatment discontinuation.Results: The mean participant age was 76 (70-89). The total number of GA management recommendations relayed was 409, of which 35.4% were implemented by the primary oncologist. Incidence of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity did not differ between the two groups. Prevalence of hospitalization, dose reductions, dose delays, and early treatment discontinuation also did not differ between the two groups.Conclusions: An algorithm can be used to guide GA management recommendations in older adults with cancer. However, reliance upon the primary oncologist for execution resulted in a low prevalence of implementation. Future work should aim to understand barriers to implementation and explore alternate models of implementing geriatric-focused care for older adults with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Older adults with cancer represent a complex patient population. Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to evaluate the medical and supportive care needs of this group. “GA with management” is a term encompassing the resultant medical decisions and interventions implemented in response to vulnerabilities identified on GA. In older, non-cancer patients, GA with management has been shown to improve a variety of outcomes, such as reducing functional decline and health care utilization. However, the role of GA with management in the older adult with cancer is less well established. Rigorous clinical trials of GA with management are necessary to develop an evidence base and support its use in the routine oncology care of older adults. At the recent U-13 conference, “Design and Implementation of Intervention Studies to Improve or Maintain Quality of Survivorship in Older and/or Frail Adults with Cancer,” a session was dedicated to developing research priorities in GA with management. Here we summarize identified knowledge gaps in GA with management studies for older patients with cancer and propose areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]