OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study in older patients with cancer was to evaluate how clinical assessment (including age) determines the physician's treatment decisions, and how geriatric assessment (GA) further influences these decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥70years old with cancer were included if a new therapy was considered. All patients underwent a GA and results were communicated to the treating physician. After the final treatment decision, a predefined questionnaire was completed by the physician. RESULTS: In total, 937 patients with median age of 76years old were included. A total of 902 (96.3%) questionnaires were completed by the treating physicians. In 381/902 patients (42.2%) clinical assessment led to a different treatment decision compared to younger patients without co-morbidities. This difference was most prominent for chemotherapy/targeted therapy decisions. In 505/902 cases (56%) the treating physician consulted GA results before the final treatment decision. In these patients, the treatment decision was influenced by clinical assessment in 44.2%. In 31/505 patients (6.1%) the GA further influenced treatment, mostly concerning chemotherapy/targeted therapy. In eight patients GA influenced the physician to choose a more aggressive chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians use different treatment regimens in older versus younger patients, based on clinical assessment, including age. GA results further influence treatment decisions in a minority of patients and may trigger the use of less aggressive as well as more aggressive treatments. GA information is not always utilized by oncologists, indicating the need for better education and sensitization.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective study in older patients with cancer was to evaluate how clinical assessment (including age) determines the physician's treatment decisions, and how geriatric assessment (GA) further influences these decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥70years old with cancer were included if a new therapy was considered. All patients underwent a GA and results were communicated to the treating physician. After the final treatment decision, a predefined questionnaire was completed by the physician. RESULTS: In total, 937 patients with median age of 76years old were included. A total of 902 (96.3%) questionnaires were completed by the treating physicians. In 381/902 patients (42.2%) clinical assessment led to a different treatment decision compared to younger patients without co-morbidities. This difference was most prominent for chemotherapy/targeted therapy decisions. In 505/902 cases (56%) the treating physician consulted GA results before the final treatment decision. In these patients, the treatment decision was influenced by clinical assessment in 44.2%. In 31/505 patients (6.1%) the GA further influenced treatment, mostly concerning chemotherapy/targeted therapy. In eight patients GA influenced the physician to choose a more aggressive chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians use different treatment regimens in older versus younger patients, based on clinical assessment, including age. GA results further influence treatment decisions in a minority of patients and may trigger the use of less aggressive as well as more aggressive treatments. GA information is not always utilized by oncologists, indicating the need for better education and sensitization.
Authors: Ajeet Gajra; Heidi D Klepin; Tao Feng; William P Tew; Supriya G Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Cary P Gross; Stuart M Lichtman; Tanya M Wildes; Andrew E Chapman; Efrat Dotan; Vani Katheria; Laura Zavala; Chie Akiba; Arti Hurria Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Sukeshi Patel Arora; Gabor Liposits; Susan Caird; Richard F Dunne; Gordon Taylor Moffat; David Okonji; Maria Grazia Rodriquenz; Divyanshu Dua; Efrat Dotan Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: C Kenis; P Heeren; L Decoster; K Van Puyvelde; G Conings; F Cornelis; P Cornette; R Moor; S Luce; Y Libert; R Van Rijswijk; G Jerusalem; M Rasschaert; C Langenaeken; A Baitar; P Specenier; K Geboers; K Vandenborre; P R Debruyne; K Vanoverbeke; H Van den Bulck; J-P Praet; C Focan; V Verschaeve; N Nols; J-C Goeminne; B Petit; J-P Lobelle; J Flamaing; K Milisen; H Wildiers Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: K Rebecca Fega; Gregory A Abel; Gabriela Motyckova; Alexander E Sherman; Daniel J DeAngelo; David P Steensma; Ilene Galinsky; Martha Wadleigh; Richard M Stone; Jane A Driver Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Supriya G Mohile; William Dale; Mark R Somerfield; Mara A Schonberg; Cynthia M Boyd; Peggy S Burhenn; Beverly Canin; Harvey Jay Cohen; Holly M Holmes; Judith O Hopkins; Michelle C Janelsins; Alok A Khorana; Heidi D Klepin; Stuart M Lichtman; Karen M Mustian; William P Tew; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Justin P Turner; Sepehr Shakib; Nimit Singhal; Jonathon Hogan-Doran; Robert Prowse; Sally Johns; J Simon Bell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-03-02 Impact factor: 3.603