Cressida F Lorimer1, Frank Saran2, Anthony J Chalmers3, Juliet Brock4. 1. Sussex Cancer Centre, Brighton BN2 5BE, UK. Electronic address: Cressida.lorimer@bsuh.nhs.uk. 2. Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK. Electronic address: frank.saran@rmh.nhs.uk. 3. Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK. Electronic address: Anthony.chalmers@glasgow.ac.uk. 4. Sussex Cancer Centre, Brighton BN2 5BE, UK. Electronic address: Juliet.brock@bsuh.nhs.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the commonest primary malignant brain tumour amongst the adult population. Incidence peaks in the 7th and 8th decades of life and as our global population ages, rates are increasing. GBM is an almost universally fatal disease with life expectancy in the range of 3-5months amongst the elderly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The assessment of elderly GBM patients prior to treatment decisions is poorly researched and unstandardised. In order to begin tackling this issue we performed a cross-sectional survey across all UK based consultant neuro-oncologists to review their current practice in assessing elderly GBM patients. RESULTS: There were 56 respondents from a total of 93 recipients (60% response rate). All respondents confirmed that at least some patients aged 70 or over were referred to their clinics from the local multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT). Only 18% of consultants routinely performed a cognitive or frailty screening test at initial consultation. Of those who performed a screening test, the majority reported that the results of the test changed their treatment decision in approximately 50% of cases. Participants ranked performance status as the most important factor in determining treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the heterogeneity of this patient population, we argue that performance status is a crude measure of vulnerability within this cohort. Elderly GBM patients represent a unique clinical scenario because of the complexity of distinguishing neuro-oncology related symptoms from general frailty. There is a need for specific geriatric assessment models tailored to the elderly neuro-oncology population in order to facilitate treatment decisions.
OBJECTIVE:Glioblastoma (GBM) is the commonest primary malignant brain tumour amongst the adult population. Incidence peaks in the 7th and 8th decades of life and as our global population ages, rates are increasing. GBM is an almost universally fatal disease with life expectancy in the range of 3-5months amongst the elderly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The assessment of elderly GBM patients prior to treatment decisions is poorly researched and unstandardised. In order to begin tackling this issue we performed a cross-sectional survey across all UK based consultant neuro-oncologists to review their current practice in assessing elderly GBM patients. RESULTS: There were 56 respondents from a total of 93 recipients (60% response rate). All respondents confirmed that at least some patients aged 70 or over were referred to their clinics from the local multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT). Only 18% of consultants routinely performed a cognitive or frailty screening test at initial consultation. Of those who performed a screening test, the majority reported that the results of the test changed their treatment decision in approximately 50% of cases. Participants ranked performance status as the most important factor in determining treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the heterogeneity of this patient population, we argue that performance status is a crude measure of vulnerability within this cohort. Elderly GBM patients represent a unique clinical scenario because of the complexity of distinguishing neuro-oncology related symptoms from general frailty. There is a need for specific geriatric assessment models tailored to the elderly neuro-oncology population in order to facilitate treatment decisions.
Authors: Dieter Henrik Heiland; Gerrit Haaker; Ralf Watzlawick; Daniel Delev; Waseem Masalha; Pamela Franco; Marcia Machein; Ori Staszewski; Oliver Oelhke; Nils Henrik Nicolay; Oliver Schnell Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Joshua D Palmer; Deepak Bhamidipati; Minesh Mehta; Noelle L Williams; Adam P Dicker; Maria Werner-Wasik; Wenyin Shi Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Aisling M Glynn; Guhan Rangaswamy; Julianne O'Shea; Mary Dunne; Roger Grogan; Stephen MacNally; David Fitzpatrick; Clare Faul Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Jessica W Lee; John P Kirkpatrick; Frances McSherry; James E Herndon; Eric S Lipp; Annick Desjardins; Dina M Randazzo; Henry S Friedman; David M Ashley; Katherine B Peters; Margaret O Johnson Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 6.244