N M Verweij1,2, E T D Souwer3, A H W Schiphorst4, H A Maas5, J E A Portielje3, A Pronk4, F van den Bos3, M E Hamaker6. 1. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands. nverweij@diakhuis.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands. nverweij@diakhuis.nl. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Haga Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treating elderly colorectal cancer patients can be challenging. It is very important to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of potential treatments in individual patients. This treatment decision making can be guided by geriatric consultation. Our aim was to assess the effect of a geriatric evaluation on treatment decisions for older patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: Colorectal cancer patients who were referred for a geriatric consultation between 2013 and 2015 in three Dutch teaching hospitals were included in a prospective database. The outcome of geriatric assessment, non-oncological interventions and geriatricians' treatment recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: The total number of included referrals was 168. The median age was 81 years (range 60-94). Most patients (71%) had colon cancer and 49% had tumour stage III disease. The reason for geriatric consultation was uncertainty regarding the optimal oncologic treatment in 139 patients (83%). Overall 93% of patients suffered from geriatric impairments; non-oncological interventions that followed after geriatric consultation was mostly aimed at malnutrition. The geriatrician recommended the 'more intensive treatment' option in 69% and the 'less intensive treatment' option in 31% of which 63% 'supportive care only'. CONCLUSION: Geriatric consultation can be useful in treatment decision making in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. It may lead to changes in the treatment plan for individual cases and may result in an additional optimisation of patient's health status prior to treatment.
BACKGROUND: Treating elderly colorectal cancerpatients can be challenging. It is very important to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of potential treatments in individual patients. This treatment decision making can be guided by geriatric consultation. Our aim was to assess the effect of a geriatric evaluation on treatment decisions for older patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS:Colorectal cancerpatients who were referred for a geriatric consultation between 2013 and 2015 in three Dutch teaching hospitals were included in a prospective database. The outcome of geriatric assessment, non-oncological interventions and geriatricians' treatment recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: The total number of included referrals was 168. The median age was 81 years (range 60-94). Most patients (71%) had colon cancer and 49% had tumour stage III disease. The reason for geriatric consultation was uncertainty regarding the optimal oncologic treatment in 139 patients (83%). Overall 93% of patients suffered from geriatric impairments; non-oncological interventions that followed after geriatric consultation was mostly aimed at malnutrition. The geriatrician recommended the 'more intensive treatment' option in 69% and the 'less intensive treatment' option in 31% of which 63% 'supportive care only'. CONCLUSION: Geriatric consultation can be useful in treatment decision making in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. It may lead to changes in the treatment plan for individual cases and may result in an additional optimisation of patient's health status prior to treatment.
Authors: Marije E Hamaker; Anandi H Schiphorst; Daan ten Bokkel Huinink; Cees Schaar; Barbara C van Munster Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: N M Verweij; A H W Schiphorst; H A Maas; D D E Zimmerman; F van den Bos; A Pronk; I H M Borel Rinkes; M E Hamaker Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Marije E Hamaker; Meike C Prins; Anandi H Schiphorst; Sebastiaan A C van Tuyl; Apollo Pronk; Frederiek van den Bos Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Hans Wildiers; Pieter Heeren; Martine Puts; Eva Topinkova; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Martine Extermann; Claire Falandry; Andrew Artz; Etienne Brain; Giuseppe Colloca; Johan Flamaing; Theodora Karnakis; Cindy Kenis; Riccardo A Audisio; Supriya Mohile; Lazzaro Repetto; Barbara Van Leeuwen; Koen Milisen; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J W T Dekker; C B M van den Broek; E Bastiaannet; L G M van de Geest; R A E M Tollenaar; G J Liefers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: P A J Vissers; R H A Verhoeven; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; M J Westerman; J C H B M Luijten; L Brom; M de Bièvre; J Buijsen; T Rozema; N Haj Mohammad; P van Duijvendijk; E A Kouwenhoven; W J Eshuis; C Rosman; P D Siersema; H W M van Laarhoven Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 2.908