scholarly journals How We Care for an Older Patient With Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armin Shahrokni ◽  
Soo Jung Kim ◽  
George J. Bosl ◽  
Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki

As the number of older patients with cancer is increasing, oncology disciplines are faced with the challenge of managing patients with multiple chronic conditions who have difficulty maintaining independence, who may have cognitive impairment, and who also may be more vulnerable to adverse outcomes. National and international societies have recommended that all older patients with cancer undergo geriatric assessment (GA) to detect unaddressed problems and introduce interventions to augment functional status to possibly improve patient survival. Several predictive models have been developed, and evidence has shown correlation between information obtained through GA and treatment-related complications. Comprehensive geriatric evaluations and effective interventions on the basis of GA may prove to be challenging for the oncologist because of the lack of the necessary skills, time constraints, and/or limited available resources. In this article, we describe how the Geriatrics Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center approaches an older patient with colon cancer from presentation to the end of life, show the importance of GA at the various stages of cancer treatment, and how predictive models are used to tailor the treatment. The patient’s needs and preferences are at the core of the decision-making process. Development of a plan of care should always include the patient’s preferences, but it is particularly important in the older patient with cancer because a disease-centered approach may neglect noncancer considerations. We will elaborate on the added value of co-management between the oncologist and a geriatric nurse practitioner and on the feasibility of adapting elements of this model into busy oncology practices.

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna G. Keenan ◽  
Michelle O'Brien ◽  
Tim Ryan ◽  
Mary Dunne ◽  
Orla McArdle

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.01095
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Burris ◽  
Tia N. Borger ◽  
Brent J. Shelton ◽  
Audrey K. Darville ◽  
Jamie L. Studts ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Smoking after a cancer diagnosis is linked to cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, among other adverse outcomes. Yet, 10%-20% of US cancer survivors are current smokers. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco treatment in cancer care facilities is widely recommended, yet rarely accomplished. This study focuses on the early outcomes of a population-based tobacco treatment program integrated within an National Cancer Institute–designated cancer center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The sample consists of 26,365 patients seen at the cancer center during the first 18 months of program implementation. The study is a retrospective chart review of patients' tobacco use and, among current users, patients' treatment referral response. RESULTS: More than 99% of patients were screened for tobacco use. Current (past month) use was observed in 21.05% of patients; cigarettes were the most popular product. Only 17.22% of current users accepted a referral for tobacco treatment; among current users who declined, the majority were not ready to quit (65.84%) or wanted to quit on their own (27.01%). Multiple demographic variables were associated with tobacco use and treatment referral response outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite cancer diagnosis presenting a teachable moment for tobacco cessation, patients with cancer may not be ready to quit or engage with treatment. Clinically proven strategies to increase motivation, prompt quit attempts, and encourage treatment use should be key components of tobacco treatment delivery to patients with cancer.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (30) ◽  
pp. 3538-3546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Jee ◽  
Michael B. Foote ◽  
Melissa Lumish ◽  
Aaron J. Stonestrom ◽  
Beatriz Wills ◽  
...  

PURPOSE Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) mortality is higher in patients with cancer than in the general population, yet the cancer-associated risk factors for COVID-19 adverse outcomes are not fully characterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS We reviewed clinical characteristics and outcomes from patients with cancer and concurrent COVID-19 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center until March 31, 2020 (n = 309), and observed clinical end points until April 13, 2020. We hypothesized that cytotoxic chemotherapy administered within 35 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis is associated with an increased hazard ratio (HR) of severe or critical COVID-19. In secondary analyses, we estimated associations between specific clinical and laboratory variables and the incidence of a severe or critical COVID-19 event. RESULTS Cytotoxic chemotherapy administration was not significantly associated with a severe or critical COVID-19 event (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.60). Hematologic malignancy was associated with increased COVID-19 severity (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.80). Patients with lung cancer also demonstrated higher rates of severe or critical COVID-19 events (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.30). Lymphopenia at COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with higher rates of severe or critical illness (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.10). Patients with baseline neutropenia 14-90 days before COVID-19 diagnosis had worse outcomes (HR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.70 to 11.00). Findings from these analyses remained consistent in a multivariable model and in multiple sensitivity analyses. The rate of adverse events was lower in a time-matched population of patients with cancer without COVID-19. CONCLUSION Recent cytotoxic chemotherapy treatment was not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Patients with active hematologic or lung malignancies, peri–COVID-19 lymphopenia, or baseline neutropenia had worse COVID-19 outcomes. Interactions among antineoplastic therapy, cancer type, and COVID-19 are complex and warrant further investigation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S255-S255
Author(s):  
Diana Vilar-Compte ◽  
Daniel De La Rosa Martinez ◽  
Alexandra Martín-Onraet ◽  
Carolina Pérez-Jiménez ◽  
Beda Islas-Muñoz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Literature on SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients is scarce in Latin America. This population seems to have a higher risk for adverse outcomes. This study aims to correlate clinical characteristics with outcomes in patients with cancer in a referral center in Mexico. Methods We included patients with cancer and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, from April, 19 to December 30, 2020, at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico. Clinical information was obtained from medical and epidemiological records. We conducted a descriptive analysis. For the association between variables with hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and mortality; univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed; odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results Four hundred thirty-three patients were included; 268 (62%) were female, the median age was 55 years. One hundred thirty-five (31%), 130 (30%), and 93 (21%) patients had obesity, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus (DM), respectively. Three hundred forty-one (79%) had solid cancer; 82 (19%) hematological malignancy (HM), and 10 (2%) were under evaluation for cancer diagnosis. One hundred seventy (39%) had advanced or metastatic cancer. One hundred ninety-eight (46%) patients were hospitalized. Risk factors were: age (p= 0.001); woman (p=0.019); HM (p=0.050) and advanced or metastatic cancer (p= 0.041). Fourty-five (10%) patients required IMV. Age (p=0.018); DM (p=0.041); C-Reactive Protein (p= 0.002), and LDH (p= 0.033) were associated with invasive mechanical ventilation. Mortality within 30-days after diagnosis was 19% (82 cases). Associated characteristics were: age (p=0.041); lymphocytes (p=0.049); creatinine (p=0.005) and albumin (p=0.001). Conclusion In this study, patients with cancer showed higher mortality, need of hospitalization, and invasive mechanical ventilation compared with groups of patients without cancer. We did not find an increased risk in mortality for hematological malignancies. Although our cohort was younger than others previously reported, age was a strong predictor of adverse outcomes. Variables associated with IMV and death were similar to those previously described in cancer patients with COVID-19. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 363-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaotao Zhang ◽  
Linda Pang ◽  
Shreela V Sharma ◽  
Ruosha Li ◽  
Alan G Nyitray ◽  
...  

BackgroundMalnutrition is common in older adults with cancer and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. We assessed and compared the validity of three tools commonly used to screen for malnutrition: The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), weight loss and body mass index (BMI).MethodsIn this retrospective study, we reviewed patients over age 65 with a diagnosis of cancer who were treated at the MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1 January 2013 and 31 March 2017. All patients in this study were evaluated by a trained geriatrician as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Malnutrition was diagnosed by both CGA and clinical examination. The sensitivity, specificity and Cohen’s κ of each tool was also compared with the clinical diagnosis.ResultsA total of 454 older patients with cancer who had malnutrition information available were included in the analyses. The median age was 78%, and 42% (n=190) were clinically diagnosed with malnutrition at baseline. When the MNA was performed, 105 out of 352 patients (30%) were malnourished, and 122 (35%) at risk of malnutrition. Weight loss >3 kg was seen in 183 out of 359 (51%) patients, and BMI <20 kg/m2 was found in 30 of the 454 (7%) patients. MNA had the highest validity (area under curve (AUC)=0.83) and reliability (κ=0.67), weight loss had moderate validity (AUC=0.73) and reliability (κ=0.46), while BMI had the lowest validity (AUC=0.55) and reliability (κ=0.55).ConclusionsFor clinical practice, MNA should be incorporated for standard assessment/screening for these older patients with cancer.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. S53
Author(s):  
L. Keenan ◽  
M.M. O'Brien ◽  
E.M. Pfeiffer ◽  
H. Buckley ◽  
B. Hennessy ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 1034-1041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura C Blomaard ◽  
Simon P Mooijaart ◽  
Shanti Bolt ◽  
Jacinta A Lucke ◽  
Jelle de Gelder ◽  
...  

Abstract Background risk stratification tools for older patients in the emergency department (ED) have rarely been implemented successfully in routine care. Objective to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the ‘Acutely Presenting Older Patient’ (APOP) screener, which identifies older ED patients at the highest risk of adverse outcomes within 2 minutes at presentation. Design and setting 2-month prospective cohort study, after the implementation of the APOP screener in ED routine care in the Leiden University Medical Center. Subjects all consecutive ED patients aged ≥70 years. Methods feasibility of screening was assessed by measuring the screening rate and by identifying patient- and organisation-related determinants of screening completion. Acceptability was assessed by collecting experienced barriers of screening completion from triage-nurses. Results we included 953 patients with a median age of 77 (IQR 72–82) years, of which 560 (59%) patients were screened. Patients had a higher probability of being screened when they had a higher age (OR 1.03 (95%CI 1.01–1.06), P = 0.017). Patients had a lower probability of being screened when they were triaged very urgent (OR 0.55 (0.39–0.78), P = 0.001) or when the number of patients upon arrival was high (OR 0.63 (0.47–0.86), P = 0.003). Experienced barriers of screening completion were patient-related (‘patient was too sick’), organisation-related (‘ED was too busy’) and personnel-related (‘forgot to complete screening’). Conclusion with more than half of all older patients screened, feasibility and acceptability of screening in routine ED care is very promising. To further improve screening completion, solutions are needed for patients who present with high urgency and during ED rush hours.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document