How to incorporate geriatric assessment in clinical decision-making for older patients with cancer. An implementation study

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 951-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Festen ◽  
Maaike Kok ◽  
Jana S. Hopstaken ◽  
Hanneke van der Wal-Huisman ◽  
Annya van der Leest ◽  
...  
Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2979-2979
Author(s):  
Santiago Bonanad ◽  
Ernesto Perez Persona ◽  
Itziar Oiartzabal ◽  
Bernardo Gonzalez ◽  
Carlos Fernandez-Lago ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Older patients are increasingly prevalent in oncological practice. However, the evidence suggests that this group of patients is undertreated, mainly because of their advanced age, regardless of whether they are highly functional patients, do not present comorbidities, or could benefit from oncological therapies. The US National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology have recommended that some form of geriatric assessment should be conducted to help Hematologists and Oncologists in order to identify current health problems and to guide interventions to reduce adverse outcomes and optimize the functional status Currently, the main tool for assessing older patients is a comprehensive geriatric assessment, although its complexity and duration may hinder its regular use in daily practice as a tool for clinical decision making. Several attempts have been made to assess comorbidities in the specific field of mielodysplasia, but mainly focused on organic damage rather than global assessment. Aim We are in the process of developing and validating a comprehensive health status assessment scale (Geriatric Assessment in Hematology, GAH Scale) with eight dimensions in patients ≥ 65 years with: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) and multiple myeloma (MM). Methods After item-pool generation, stakeholder consultation and content validation, a brief scale of 8 dimensions with selected items has been created. Feasibility was confirmed in 83 patients. Afterwards, a multicenter, observational, prospective study has been carried out in 20 hospitals in Spain, enrolling 189 elderly naïve to treatment patients with newly diagnosed MDS, AML or MM. The scale validation process integrates the analysis of criterion and concept validity, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability, as well as the evaluation of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and factor analysis. After psychometric validation phase, further studies will be carried out in order to evaluate its clinical use for prognosis and clinical decision making. Results 189 patients fulfilling inclusion criteria have been enrolled in the study, 54% women. Median age at diagnosis was 73.3 ± 6.64 years. According to diagnosis, 103 patients (54.5%) had MDS or AML and 86 (45.5%) had MM. Regarding feasibility, mean time for filling in the questionnaire was 12.1 ± 4.5 min. 83.6% of patients answered 100% of questions of the scale. Mean percentage of unanswered questions per patient was 1%. Test-retest was completed by 112 patients. GAH Scale showed satisfactory test-retest reliability. ICC was statistically significant for each dimension, being greater than 0.65 for 6 of the 8 dimensions (p<0.05), indicating that GAH Scale is independent of the observer and is stable in clinically stable patients along the time. Floor and ceiling effects were no detected. Internal consistency, content validity and factor analysis are being carried out and results will be presented in the forthcoming congress. Conclusion This new GAH Scale is a valid, reliable and consistent tool, simple enough to assess health status in older patients with haematological malignancies. Further studies will have to stablish if it may be a tool to improve decision making in such patients. Disclosures: Bonanad: Celgene: Consultancy. Gonzalez:Celgene: Consultancy. Durán:Celgene: Employment. Marcos:Celgene: Employment. López:Celgene: Employment. Cruz-Jentoft:Celgene: Research Funding.


Maturitas ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 128 ◽  
pp. 49-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariken E. Stegmann ◽  
Suzanne Festen ◽  
Daan Brandenbarg ◽  
Jan Schuling ◽  
Barbara van Leeuwen ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19586-e19586
Author(s):  
Nadine Jackson McCleary ◽  
Devin Wigler ◽  
Donna Lynn Berry ◽  
Kaori Sato ◽  
Arti Hurria ◽  
...  

e19586 Feasibility of computer-based self-administered cancer-specific geriatric assessment (SA-CSGA) in older pts w/ gastrointestinal malignancy (GIM) Background: The CSGA (Hurria, JCO 2011) is a brief geriatric assessment consisting of validated measures primarily self-administered using paper format. We developed & tested feasibility of a computer-based SA-CSGA in pts ≥70 yrs w/ GIM. Methods: From 12/2009 - 6/2011, pts ≥70 yrs receiving treatment (rx) for GIM at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were consented to complete SA-CSGA at baseline (T1= new or change rx) & follow-up (T2 = w/in 4 wks of completing rx). Feasibility endpts are (1) proportion of eligible pts consenting; (2) proportion completing SA-CSGA at T1 & T2; (3) time to completion of SA-CSGA; (4) proportion of MDs reporting change in clinical decision-making due to SA-CSGA. Results: Of the 49 eligible pts, 38 consented (55% female, 89% White, 76% enrolling prior to new rx). Mean age was 77yrs (range 70-89), 38% completed college, 49% married, 27% live alone, and 78% retired. 50% were diagnosed w/ colorectal cancer (ca). Mean MD-rated Karnofsky Performance Status was 87.5 at T1(range 60-100), 83.5 at T2 (range 70-100). At T1, 92% used a touch screen computer; 97% completed the SA-CSGA (51% independently). At T2, all pts used a touch screen computer; 71% completed the SA-CSGA (41% independently). Reasons for not completing SA-CSGA were withdrawal of consent (n=1 at T1 & T2), transfer of care (n=3; T2) or death (n=7; T2). The dominant reason for needing assistance was lack of computer familiarity (n=17 T1, n=14 T2). Mean time to completion was 23min at T1 (range 15-58); 20min at T2 (range 13-35). Among the 8 MDs who consented to participate, SA-CSGA added information to clinical assessment for 75% at T1 (n=27) and 65% at T2 (n=17) but did not alter immediate clinical decision-making. Conclusions: The computer-assisted SA-CSGA feasibility endpt was met for older pts w/ GIM although approximately half required assistance. While the SA-CSGA added information to clinical assessment, results did not impact clinical decision-making. Reasons for this may include relatively high-functioning patients enrolled in this study.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 228-228
Author(s):  
Cristiane Decat Bergerot ◽  
Paulo Gustavo Bergerot ◽  
Joann Hsu ◽  
Nazli Dizman ◽  
Stacy W. Gray ◽  
...  

228 Background: Genomic profiling (GP) plays an important role in the care of patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, and has been used to guide clinical decision making. As age has been associated with low health literacy, we sought to determine comprehension of the goals and objectives of GP between younger (age < 65) and older (age ≥65) with genitourinary cancers. Methods: Eligible patients had agreed to receive somatic GP as a part of routine clinical care through a CLIA-certified commercially available platform. Participating physicians conducted a standardized dialogue with patients pertaining to the rationale for and clinical utility of somatic GP. Patients then received an in-person survey lasting approximately 10-15 min and assessing a broad range of perceptions related to GP. Results: Among 47 patients, 62% were characterized as older adults. Diagnoses encountered included kidney (43%), prostate (32%), and bladder (25%). Only older adults perceived any shortcomings in the description of GP. These shortcomings related to the clarity of the descriptions of genomic data, as well as the accuracy, detail and compassion with which this information was conveyed. Older adults demonstrated a very strong reliance on physician input in their decision to obtain somatic GP - 42% of older adults suggested that trust in their physician was among the top three reasons for which they opted to do genomic testing, in contrast to just 10% of younger patients (P = 0.04). Both older and younger patients demonstrated frequent misconceptions pertaining to the role of GP. For example, the majority of younger (78%) and older (52%) patients suggested the test was being performed for prognostic purposes. Both groups also frequently held the notion that somatic testing could identify hereditary cancer-related disorders (younger: 78% vs older: 66%). Conclusions: Detailed surveys of patients with genitourinary cancers reveal varied comprehension of somatic GP between younger and older patients. Interventions to enhance understanding of the principles of GP may be helpful in facilitating shared decision-making, particularly among older patients.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 587-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan A. Casal ◽  
Thomas D. Nolin ◽  
Jan H. Beumer

Estimation of kidney function in patients with cancer directly affects drug dosing, agent selection, and eligibility for clinical trials of novel agents. Overestimation of kidney function may lead to overdosing or inappropriate agent selection and corresponding toxicity. Conversely, underestimation of kidney function may lead to underdosing or inappropriate agent exclusion and subsequent therapeutic failure. It would seem obvious that the most accurate estimates of kidney function should be used to reduce variability in decision making and ultimately, the therapeutic outcomes of toxicity and clinical benefit. However, clinical decision making is often more complex. The Cockcroft–Gault formula remains the most universally implemented estimator of kidney function in patients with cancer, despite its relative inaccuracy compared with the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation is a more precise estimator of kidney function; however, many currently used kidney function cutoff values were determined before the development of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation and creatinine assay standardization using Cockcroft–Gault estimates. There is a need for additional studies investigating the validity of currently used estimates of kidney function in patients with cancer and the applicability of traditional anticancer dosing and eligibility guidelines to modern and more accurate estimates of kidney function. In this review, we consider contemporary calculation methods used to estimate kidney function in patients with cancer. We discuss the clinical implications of using these various methods, including the potential influence on drug dosing, drug selection, and clinical trial eligibility, using carboplatin and cisplatin as case studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document