BACKGROUND: The Cancer-Specific Geriatric Assessment (CSGA) is a primarily self-administered paper survey of validated measures. METHODS: We developed and tested the feasibility of a computer-based CSGA in patients ≥70 years of age who were receiving treatment for gastrointestinal malignancies at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. From December 2009 to June 2011, patients were invited to complete the CSGA at baseline (start of new treatment) and follow-up (at the first of 4 months later or within 4 weeks of completing treatment). Feasibility endpoints were proportion of eligible patients consented, proportion completing CSGA at baseline and follow-up, time to complete CSGA, and proportion of physicians reporting CSGA results that led to a change in clinical decision-making. RESULTS: Of the 49 eligible patients, 38 consented (76% were treatment naive). Median age was 77 years (range: 70-89 years), and 48% were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Mean physician-rated Karnofsky Performance Status was 87.5 at baseline (SD 8.4) and 83.5 at follow-up (SD 8). At baseline, 92% used a touchscreen computer; 97% completed the CSGA (51% independently). At follow-up, all patients used a touchscreen computer; 71% completed the CSGA (41% independently). Mean time to completion was 23 minutes at baseline (SD 8.4) and 20 minutes at follow-up (SD 5.1). The CSGA added information to clinical assessment for 75% at baseline (n = 27) and 65% at follow-up (n = 17), but it did not alter immediate clinical decision-making. CONCLUSION: The computer-based CSGA feasibility endpoints were met, although approximately half of patients required assistance. The CSGA added information to clinical assessment but did not affect clinical decision-making, possibly due to limited alternate treatment options in this subset of patients.
BACKGROUND: The Cancer-Specific Geriatric Assessment (CSGA) is a primarily self-administered paper survey of validated measures. METHODS: We developed and tested the feasibility of a computer-based CSGA in patients ≥70 years of age who were receiving treatment for gastrointestinal malignancies at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. From December 2009 to June 2011, patients were invited to complete the CSGA at baseline (start of new treatment) and follow-up (at the first of 4 months later or within 4 weeks of completing treatment). Feasibility endpoints were proportion of eligible patients consented, proportion completing CSGA at baseline and follow-up, time to complete CSGA, and proportion of physicians reporting CSGA results that led to a change in clinical decision-making. RESULTS: Of the 49 eligible patients, 38 consented (76% were treatment naive). Median age was 77 years (range: 70-89 years), and 48% were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Mean physician-rated Karnofsky Performance Status was 87.5 at baseline (SD 8.4) and 83.5 at follow-up (SD 8). At baseline, 92% used a touchscreen computer; 97% completed the CSGA (51% independently). At follow-up, all patients used a touchscreen computer; 71% completed the CSGA (41% independently). Mean time to completion was 23 minutes at baseline (SD 8.4) and 20 minutes at follow-up (SD 5.1). The CSGA added information to clinical assessment for 75% at baseline (n = 27) and 65% at follow-up (n = 17), but it did not alter immediate clinical decision-making. CONCLUSION: The computer-based CSGA feasibility endpoints were met, although approximately half of patients required assistance. The CSGA added information to clinical assessment but did not affect clinical decision-making, possibly due to limited alternate treatment options in this subset of patients.
Authors: Arti Hurria; Kayo Togawa; Supriya G Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Stuart M Lichtman; Ajeet Gajra; Smita Bhatia; Vani Katheria; Shira Klapper; Kurt Hansen; Rupal Ramani; Mark Lachs; F Lennie Wong; William P Tew Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Araba Adjei; Jan C Buckner; Elizabeth Cathcart-Rake; Hongbin Chen; Harvey J Cohen; Dyda Dao; Jo-Ellen De Luca; Josephine Feliciano; Rachel A Freedman; Richard M Goldberg; Judith Hopkins; Joleen Hubbard; Aminah Jatoi; Meghan Karuturi; Margaret Kemeny; Gretchen G Kimmick; Heidi D Klepin; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Jacqueline M Lafky; Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Daneng Li; Stuart M Lichtman; Ronald Maggiore; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Vicki A Morrison; Hyman B Muss; Michael O Ojelabi; Mina S Sedrak; Niveditha Subbiah; Virginia Sun; Susan Tuttle; Noam VanderWalde; Tanya Wildes; Melisa L Wong; Jennifer Woyach Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Benjamin A Derman; Keriann Kordas; Jean Ridgeway; Selina Chow; William Dale; Sang Mee Lee; Elingel Aguada; Andrzej J Jakubowiak; Jagoda Jasielec; Justin Kline; Satyajit Kosuri; Richard A Larson; Hongtao Liu; Mylove Mortel; Olatoyosi Odenike; Jennifer Pisano; Peter Riedell; Wendy Stock; Michael R Bishop; Andrew S Artz Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: Markus K Schuler; Freya Trautmann; Mirko Radloff; Roman Schmädig; Leopold Hentschel; Maria Eberlein-Gonska; Thomas Petzold; Heike Vetter; Sebastian Oberlack; Gerhard Ehninger; Jochen Schmitt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Harvey Jay Cohen; David Smith; Can-Lan Sun; William Tew; Supriya G Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Stuart M Lichtman; Ajeet Gajra; Julie Filo; Vani Katheria; Arti Hurria Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 6.860