Dataset Information

Geriatric assessment with management intervention in older adults with cancer: a randomized pilot study.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Magnuson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5887127 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Geriatric assessment with management intervention in older adults with cancer: a randomized pilot study.

Magnuson Allison A Lemelman Tatyana T Pandya Chintan C Goodman Molly M Noel Marcus M Tejani Mohammed M Doughtery David D Dale William W Hurria Arti A Janelsins Michelle M Lin Feng Vankee FV Heckler Charles C Mohile Supriya S

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20170915 2

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a randomized pilot study comparing GA with management interventions versus usual care in patients with stage III/IV solid tumor mal ...[more]

PMID: 28914366

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer.MethodsPatients aged ?65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients' palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients' quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen's d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect.ResultsFrom February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (-0.77 vs -3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (-0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs -0.80; ES = 0.38).ConclusionsIn this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients' unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients' QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery.MethodsFrom 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥ 65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses.ResultsITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P = 0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.690), or complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P = 0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P = 0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P = 0.137) remained non-significant.ConclusionsIn this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Oncology clinicians often struggle with managing medications and vaccinations in older adults with cancer. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of integrating pharmacists into the care of older adults with cancer to enhance medication management and vaccination administration. METHODS:We randomly assigned patients aged ?65 years with breast, gastrointestinal, or lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy to the pharmacy intervention or usual care. Patients assigned to the intervention met with a pharmacist once during their second or third chemotherapy infusion. We obtained information about patients' medications and vaccinations via patient report and from the electronic health record (EHR) at baseline and week 4. We determined the number of discrepant (difference between patient report and EHR) and potentially inappropriate (Beers Criteria assessed by nonintervention pharmacists blinded to group assignment) medications. We defined the intervention as feasible if >75% of patients enrolled in the study and received the pharmacist visit. RESULTS:From January 17, 2017, to October 27, 2017, we enrolled and randomized 60 patients (80.1% of patients approached). Among those assigned to the intervention, 96.6% received the pharmacist visit. At week 4, intervention patients had higher rates of acquiring vaccinations for pneumonia (27.6% vs. 0.0%, p = .002) and influenza (27.6% vs. 0.0%, p = .002) compared with usual care. Intervention patients had fewer discrepant (5.82 vs. 8.07, p = .094) and potentially inappropriate (3.46 vs. 4.80, p = .069) medications at week 4, although differences were not significant. CONCLUSION:Integrating pharmacists into the care of older adults with cancer is feasible with encouraging preliminary efficacy for enhancing medication management and improving vaccination rates. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Results of this study showed the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an intervention integrating pharmacists into the care of older adults with cancer. Notably, patients assigned to the intervention had fewer discrepant medications and were more likely to acquire vaccinations for pneumonia and influenza. Importantly, this work represents the first randomized controlled trial involving the integration of pharmacists into the outpatient oncologic care of older adults with cancer. In the future, a larger randomized trial is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of this care model to enhance medication management and improve vaccination outcomes for older patients with cancer.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hospitalized older adults have significant geriatric deficits that may lead to poor outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial to investigate the effectiveness of providing clinicians with a real-time geriatric assessment (GA) report in nonelectively hospitalized older patients with cancer. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS:We developed a web-based software platform for administering a modified GA (Cancer 2005;104:1998-2005) to older (>70?years) nonelectively hospitalized patients with pathologically confirmed malignancy. Patients were randomized to have their GA report provided to their treating clinicians (Intervention arm) or not provided (Control arm). RESULTS:Our study included 135 patients, median age 76 years, 52% female, 75% white, 21% black, 79% greater than high school education, 59% married, and 17% living alone. All patients had at least one GA-identified deficit, including physical function deficits (90%), cognitive impairment (22%), >5 comorbidities (28%), polypharmacy (>9 medications; 38%), weight loss ?10% in the past 6 months (40%), anxiety (32%), or depression (30%). There was no difference between the Intervention (6%) and Control arms (9%) in the proportion of patients who were referred by their clinical team for an intervention to address a deficit (p = .53). CONCLUSION:Many older nonelectively hospitalized patients with cancer have geriatric deficits that are amenable to evidence-based interventions. Real-time GA reports provided to the care team prior to discharge did not influence provider referral for such interventions. There is a need for systems-level interventions to address deficits in this vulnerable patient population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Geriatric deficits are common in hospitalized older adults with cancer and lead to poor outcomes. Addressing modifiable deficits represents an appealing way to improve outcomes. Widespread geriatrician consultation is impractical owing to resource and personnel constraints. This work tested whether prompt delivery of a mostly self-administered, web-based geriatric assessment report to clinicians improved referral rates for evidence-informed interventions. It confirmed frequent geriatric deficits and high readmission rates in this population but found that real-time geriatric assessment reporting did not influence provider referral for evidence-informed interventions on geriatric assessment identified deficits. These findings highlight the need for systems-level intervention to improve outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

Project description:BackgroundIn longevity societies, one of the most serious social issues is sarcopenia and/or frailty. Preventing them is important for maintaining independence and quality of life in the older population. This study investigated the effect of a self-monitoring comprehensive geriatric intervention programme (CGIP) on physical function and muscle size in community-dwelling older adults. We compared the effects of a CGIP using weekly class-styled (CS) sessions and a home-based (HB) programme.MethodsThe 526 participants were randomized into one of two groups (CS 251, HB 275) based on their residential districts. We conducted a 12 week CGIP, which consisted of low-load resistance exercise, physical activity increments, oral function improvements, and a nutritional guide. All participants were encouraged to attend two 90 min lectures that included instructions on the CGIP. They were provided with exercise materials (triaxial-accelerometers/pedometers, ankle weights, and elastic bands) and diary logs. The CS group attended 90 min weekly sessions and independently executed the programme on other days, whereas the HB group only received instructions on how to execute the programme. Physical functions, such as knee extension strength (KES), normal and maximum walking speed, the timed up-and-go test, and anterior thigh muscle thickness (MT), were measured and analysed using intention-to-treat analysis before and after the 12 week intervention.ResultsOf the 526 participants identified, 517 (CS 243 age 74.0 ± 5.4 women 57.2%, HB 274 age 74.0 ± 5.6 women 58.8%) were enrolled. Nine (CS 8, HB 1) were excluded from the analysis because they did not participate in the pre-intervention measurements. Both interventions significantly improved KES (CS 18.5%, HB 10.6%), normal walking speed (CS 3.7%, HB 2.8%), and MT (CS 3.2%, HB 3.5%). Greater improvement of KES was observed in the CS group (P = 0.003). Maximum walking speed (CS 4.7%, HB 1.8%; P = 0.001) and timed up-and-go (CS -4.7%, HB -0.2%; P < 0.001) significantly improved in the CS group only.ConclusionsThe intervention was effective in preventing sarcopenia and/or frailty. Most physical functions and MT improved after both interventions. The HB intervention is cost-effective and may help prevent sarcopenia and/or frailty in the large older population.

Project description:IntroductionMore older adults die from lung cancer worldwide than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers combined. Current lung cancer treatments may prolong life, but can also cause considerable treatment-related toxicity.ObjectiveThis study is a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial which evaluated whether providing a geriatric assessment (GA) summary and GA-guided management recommendations can improve grade 3-5 toxicity among older adults with advanced lung cancer.MethodsWe analyzed participants aged ≥70 years(y) with stage III & IV (advanced) lung cancer and ≥1 GA domain impairment starting a new cancer treatment with high-risk of toxicity within the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program. Community practices were randomized to the intervention arm (oncologists received GA summary & recommendations) versus usual care (UC: no summary or recommendations given). The primary outcome was grade 3-5 toxicity through 3 months post-treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes included 6-month (mo) and 1-year overall survival (OS), treatment modifications, and unplanned hospitalizations. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear mixed and Cox proportional hazards models with practice site as a random effect. Trial Registration: NCT02054741.Results & conclusionAmong 180 participants with advanced lung cancer, the mean age was 76.3y (SD 5.1), 39.4% were female and 82.2% had stage IV disease. The proportion of patients who experienced grade 3-5 toxicity was significantly lower in the intervention arm vs UC (53.1% vs 71.6%, P=0.01). More participants in the intervention arm received lower intensity treatment at cycle 1 (56.3% vs 35.3%; P<0.01). Even with a cycle 1 dose reduction, OS at 6mo and 1 year was not significantly different (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] intervention vs. UC: 6mo HR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.52-1.57, P=0.72; 1 year HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.58-1.36, P=0.57). Frequent toxicity checks, providing education and counseling materials, and initiating direct communication with the patient's primary care physician were among the most common GA-guided management recommendations. Providing a GA summary and management recommendations can significantly improve tolerability of cancer treatment among older adults with advanced lung cancer.

Project description:Geriatric assessment (GA) is an important tool for management of older cancer patients; however, GA research has been performed primarily in the outpatient setting. The primary objective of this study was to determine feasibility of GA during an unplanned hospital stay. Secondary objectives were to describe deficits found with GA, to assess whether clinicians recognized and addressed deficits, and to determine 30-day readmission rates.The study was designed as an extension of an existing registry, "Carolina Senior: Registry for Older Patients." Inclusion criteria were age 70 and older and biopsy-proven solid tumor, myeloma, or lymphoma. Patients had to complete the GA within 7 days of nonelective admission to University of North Carolina Hospital.A total of 142 patients were approached, and 90 (63%) consented to participation. All sections of GA had at least an 83% completion rate. Overall, 53% of patients reported problems with physical function, 63% had deficits in instrumental activities of daily living, 34% reported falls, 12% reported depression, 31% had ?10% weight loss, and 12% had abnormalities in cognition. Physician documentation of each deficit ranged from 20% to 46%. Rates of referrals to allied health professionals were not significantly different between patients with and without deficits. The 30-day readmission rate was 29%.GA was feasible in this population. Hospitalized older cancer patients have high levels of functional and psychosocial deficits; however, clinician recognition and management of deficits were poor. The use of GA instruments to guide referrals to appropriate services is a way to potentially improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.Geriatric assessment (GA) is an important tool in the management of older cancer patients; however, its primary clinical use has been in the outpatient setting. During an unplanned hospitalization, patients are extremely frail and are most likely to benefit from GA. This study demonstrates that hospitalized older adults with cancer have high levels of functional deficits on GA. These deficits are under-recognized and poorly managed by hospital-based clinicians in a tertiary care setting. Incorporation of GA measures during a hospital stay is a way to improve outcomes in this population.

Dataset Information

Geriatric assessment with management intervention in older adults with cancer: a randomized pilot study.

Publications

Geriatric assessment with management intervention in older adults with cancer: a randomized pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets