Abdelbari Baitar1, Cindy Kenis2, Ramona Moor3, Lore Decoster4, Sylvie Luce5, Dominique Bron6, Ruud Van Rijswijk7, Marika Rasschaert8, Christine Langenaeken9, Guy Jerusalem10, Jean-Pierre Lobelle11, Johan Flamaing12, Koen Milisen13, Hans Wildiers14. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, ZNA Middelheim, Antwerp, Belgium. 2. Department of General Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, UCL, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Oncologisch Centrum, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. 6. Department of Hematology, Institut Jules Bordet (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, ZNA Stuivenberg, Antwerp, Belgium. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Iridium Cancer Network Antwerp, St. Augustinus, Wilrijk, Belgium. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Iridium Cancer Network Antwerp, AZ Klina, Brasschaat, Belgium. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sart Tilman, Liege, Belgium. 11. Beernem, Belgium. 12. Department of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 13. Department of Geriatric Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Health Services and Nursing Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 14. Department of General Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: hans.wildiers@uzleuven.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to describe geriatric recommendations based on a geriatric assessment (GA) and to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A two-step approach of screening followed by a GA was implemented in nine hospitals in Belgium. Patients ≥ 70 years were included at diagnosis or at disease progression/relapse. Concrete geriatric recommendations were systematically documented and reported to the treating physicians and consisted of referrals to professional health care workers. Patient charts were reviewed after one month to verify which geriatric recommendations have been performed. RESULTS: From August 2011 to July 2012, 1550 patients were included for analysis. The median age was 77 (range: 70-97) and 57.0% were female. A solid tumour was diagnosed in 91.4% and a haematological malignancy in 8.6%. Geriatric screening with the G8 identified 63.6% of the patients for GA (n=986). A median of two geriatric recommendations (range: 1-6) were given for 76.2% (95%CI: 73.4-78.8) of the evaluable patients (n=710). A median of one geriatric recommendation (range: 1-5) was performed in 52.1% (95%CI: 48.4-55.8) of the evaluable patients (n=689). In general, 460 or 35.3% (95%CI: 32.8-38.0) of all the geriatric recommendations were performed. Geriatric recommendations most frequently consisted of referrals to the dietician (60.4%), social worker (40.3%), and psychologist (28.9%). CONCLUSION: This implementation study provides insight into GA-based recommendations/interventions in daily oncology practice. Geriatric recommendations were given in about three-fourths of patients. About one-third of all geriatric recommendations were performed in approximately half of these patients.
PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to describe geriatric recommendations based on a geriatric assessment (GA) and to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A two-step approach of screening followed by a GA was implemented in nine hospitals in Belgium. Patients ≥ 70 years were included at diagnosis or at disease progression/relapse. Concrete geriatric recommendations were systematically documented and reported to the treating physicians and consisted of referrals to professional health care workers. Patient charts were reviewed after one month to verify which geriatric recommendations have been performed. RESULTS: From August 2011 to July 2012, 1550 patients were included for analysis. The median age was 77 (range: 70-97) and 57.0% were female. A solid tumour was diagnosed in 91.4% and a haematological malignancy in 8.6%. Geriatric screening with the G8 identified 63.6% of the patients for GA (n=986). A median of two geriatric recommendations (range: 1-6) were given for 76.2% (95%CI: 73.4-78.8) of the evaluable patients (n=710). A median of one geriatric recommendation (range: 1-5) was performed in 52.1% (95%CI: 48.4-55.8) of the evaluable patients (n=689). In general, 460 or 35.3% (95%CI: 32.8-38.0) of all the geriatric recommendations were performed. Geriatric recommendations most frequently consisted of referrals to the dietician (60.4%), social worker (40.3%), and psychologist (28.9%). CONCLUSION: This implementation study provides insight into GA-based recommendations/interventions in daily oncology practice. Geriatric recommendations were given in about three-fourths of patients. About one-third of all geriatric recommendations were performed in approximately half of these patients.
Authors: Allison Magnuson; Tatyana Lemelman; Chintan Pandya; Molly Goodman; Marcus Noel; Mohammed Tejani; David Doughtery; William Dale; Arti Hurria; Michelle Janelsins; Feng Vankee Lin; Charles Heckler; Supriya Mohile Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Supriya G Mohile; Arti Hurria; Harvey J Cohen; Julia H Rowland; Corinne R Leach; Neeraj K Arora; Beverly Canin; Hyman B Muss; Allison Magnuson; Marie Flannery; Lisa Lowenstein; Heather G Allore; Karen M Mustian; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Martine Extermann; Betty Ferrell; Sharon K Inouye; Stephanie A Studenski; William Dale Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Abdelbari Baitar; Frank Buntinx; Tine De Burghgraeve; Laura Deckx; Paul Bulens; Hans Wildiers; Marjan van den Akker Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 2.655