How Is Geriatric Assessment Used in Clinical Practice for Older Adults With Cancer? A Survey of Cancer Providers by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2014
To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. Methods SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment-related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care. Results GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another. Conclusion There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.
Utilization of comprehensive geriatric assessment in cancer patients
Critical Reviews in Oncology Hematology, 2004
A growing and diverse aging population, recent advances in research on aging and cancer, and the fact that a disproportional burden of cancer still occurs in people aged 65 years and older have generated great interest in delivering better cancer care for older adults. This is particularly true as more survivors of cancer live to experience cancer as a chronic disease. Cancer and its treatment precipitate classic geriatric syndromes such as falls, malnutrition, delirium, and urinary incontinence. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), by taking all patient's needs into account and by incorporating patient's wishes for the level of aggressiveness of treatment, offers a model of integrating medical care with social support services. It holds the promise of controlling health care costs while improving quality of care by providing a better match of services to patient needs. Three decades after the CGA was initially developed in England, oncologists have begun taking notice on the potential benefits that CGA might bring to the field of geriatric oncology. This article describes the utilization of the CGA in cancer patients with an eye toward promoting interdisciplinary care for older cancer patients. To set an initial context, a search of computerized databases took place, using "comprehensive geriatric assessment" and "cancer" as keywords. A selection of literature from between 1980 and 2003 was reviewed. Additional articles were identified through the bibliography of relevant articles.
Comprehensive geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer: Two steps forward?
Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 2013
Multiple organizations, including the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, have recommended that all older adults (usually defined as age 70 or older) with cancer undergo a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) at the time of diagnosis and/or prior to treatment decision-making. 1,2 CGA has three key goals in the oncology setting:
Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 2005
Background: As more and more cancers occur in elderly people, oncologists are increasingly confronted with the necessity of integrating geriatric parameters in the treatment of their patients. Methods: The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) created a task force to review the evidence on the use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in cancer patients. A systematic review of the evidence was conducted. Results: Several biological and clinical correlates of aging have been identified. Their relative weight and clinical usefulness is still poorly defined. There is strong evidence that a CGA detects many problems missed by a regular assessment in general geriatric and in cancer patients. There is also strong evidence that a CGA improves function and reduces hospitalization in the elderly. There is heterogeneous evidence that it improves survival and that it is cost-effective. There is corroborative evidence from a few studies conducted in cancer patients. Screening tools exist and were successfully used in settings such as the emergency room, but globally were poorly tested. The article contains recommendations for the use of CGA in research and clinical care for older cancer patients. Conclusions: A CGA, with or without screening, and with follow-up, should be used in older cancer patients, in order to detect unaddressed problems, improve their functional status, and possibly their survival. The task force cannot recommend any specific tool or approach above others at this point and general geriatric experience should be used.
Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in the Older Adult with Cancer: A Review
European Urology Focus, 2017
Context: The number of older adults with cancer is expected to increase rapidly in the upcoming decades. Aging is heterogeneous and chronological age is often not reflective of biological age. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an in-depth assessment of multiple domains of health that results in better assessment of a patient's overall health and fitness and allows directed intervention to improve patient outcomes. Objective: To review the value of CGA for older adults with cancer, CGA composition and tools that can be utilized, and the feasibility of including CGA in oncologic practice. Evidence acquisition: The currently available evidence on CGA for older adults with cancer was reviewed. Evidence synthesis: A CGA can highlight unidentified health problems and identify patients at higher risk of mortality, functional decline, surgical complications, chemotherapy intolerance, and chemotherapy toxicity. It has been shown that CGA is feasible in the oncology clinic, but geriatric screening tools may be useful to specifically identify patients who would benefit from a full CGA. Conclusions: CGA is feasible and can identify patients at higher risk of adverse events such as mortality, functional decline, surgical complications, and chemotherapy toxicity. Clinicians should consider incorporating CGA when assessing and caring for older adults with cancer. Patient summary: In this report, we review the benefits of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), a detailed in-depth assessment that identifies health problems not typically identified during routine assessments, for older adults with cancer. We describe the different domains of the CGA and suggest tools to utilize, as well as ways to incorporate CGA into the cancer care setting.
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017
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 predetermined 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-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.
Implementation of geriatric assessment in oncology settings: A systematic realist review
Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 2021
Older adults with cancer are more likely to have worse clinical outcomes than their younger counterparts, and shared decision-making can be difficult, due to both complexity from adverse ageing and under-representation in clinical trials. Geriatric assessment (GA) has been increasingly recognised as a predictive and prehabilitative tool for older adults with cancer. However, GA has been notoriously difficult to implement in oncological settings due to workforce, economic, logistical, and practical barriers. We aimed to review the heterogenous literature on implementation of GA in oncology settings to understand the different implementation context configurations of GA and the mechanisms they trigger to enable successful implementation. A systematic realist review was undertaken in two stages: i) systematic searches with structured data extraction combined with iterative key stakeholder consultations to develop programme theories for implementing GA in oncology settings; ii) synthesis to refine programme theories. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library,
Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 2014
The aim of this study is to identify treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. Materials and Methods: A survey was carried out in 9 Belgian hospitals, which participated in a national GA implementation project focusing on older patients with cancer. A newly developed questionnaire was completed by their treating physicians. Data collection comprised of reviewing hospital data, general respondent data, and treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding GA. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Eighty-two physicians from 9 hospitals participated. The GA team composition can vary substantially, with a nurse as core member. Ideally, all older patients with cancer in whom a treatment decision is necessary, should benefit from the GA. Nearly all GA domains are reported as very important. Availability of GA results can be improved. Treating physicians want geriatricians to coordinate geriatric recommendations related to the