Catalina Hernandez Torres1, Tina Hsu2. 1. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 2. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Division of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, Canada. Electronic address: thsu@toh.on.ca.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The number of older adults with cancer is expected to increase rapidly in the upcoming decades. Aging is heterogeneous and chronological age is often not reflective of biological age. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an in-depth assessment of multiple domains of health that results in better assessment of a patient's overall health and fitness and allows directed intervention to improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To review the value of CGA for older adults with cancer, CGA composition and tools that can be utilized, and the feasibility of including CGA in oncologic practice. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The currently available evidence on CGA for older adults with cancer was reviewed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A CGA can highlight unidentified health problems and identify patients at higher risk of mortality, functional decline, surgical complications, chemotherapy intolerance, and chemotherapy toxicity. It has been shown that CGA is feasible in the oncology clinic, but geriatric screening tools may be useful to specifically identify patients who would benefit from a full CGA. CONCLUSIONS: CGA is feasible and can identify patients at higher risk of adverse events such as mortality, functional decline, surgical complications, and chemotherapy toxicity. Clinicians should consider incorporating CGA when assessing and caring for older adults with cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we review the benefits of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), a detailed in-depth assessment that identifies health problems not typically identified during routine assessments, for older adults with cancer. We describe the different domains of the CGA and suggest tools to utilize, as well as ways to incorporate CGA into the cancer care setting.
CONTEXT: The number of older adults with cancer is expected to increase rapidly in the upcoming decades. Aging is heterogeneous and chronological age is often not reflective of biological age. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an in-depth assessment of multiple domains of health that results in better assessment of a patient's overall health and fitness and allows directed intervention to improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To review the value of CGA for older adults with cancer, CGA composition and tools that can be utilized, and the feasibility of including CGA in oncologic practice. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The currently available evidence on CGA for older adults with cancer was reviewed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A CGA can highlight unidentified health problems and identify patients at higher risk of mortality, functional decline, surgical complications, chemotherapy intolerance, and chemotherapy toxicity. It has been shown that CGA is feasible in the oncology clinic, but geriatric screening tools may be useful to specifically identify patients who would benefit from a full CGA. CONCLUSIONS: CGA is feasible and can identify patients at higher risk of adverse events such as mortality, functional decline, surgical complications, and chemotherapy toxicity. Clinicians should consider incorporating CGA when assessing and caring for older adults with cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we review the benefits of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), a detailed in-depth assessment that identifies health problems not typically identified during routine assessments, for older adults with cancer. We describe the different domains of the CGA and suggest tools to utilize, as well as ways to incorporate CGA into the cancer care setting.
Authors: Nikesha Gilmore; Lee Kehoe; Jessica Bauer; Huiwen Xu; Bianca Hall; Megan Wells; Lianlian Lei; Eva Culakova; Marie Flannery; Valerie Aarne Grossman; Ronak Amir Sardari; Himal Subramanya; Sindhuja Kadambi; Elizabeth Belcher; Jared Kettinger; Mark A O'Rourke; Elie G Dib; Nicholas J Vogelzang; William Dale; Supriya Mohile Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-09-19
Authors: Nikesha Gilmore; Huiwen Xu; Lee Kehoe; Amber S Kleckner; Kiran Moorthi; Lianlian Lei; Mostafa R S Mohamed; Kah Poh Loh; Eva Culakova; Marie Flannery; Erika Ramsdale; Paul R Duberstein; Beverly Canin; Charles Kamen; Gilbert Giri; Erin Watson; Amita Patil; Adedayo A Onitilo; Brian Burnette; Michelle Janelsins; Supriya G Mohile Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Julia H I Wiersinga; Hanneke F M Rhodius-Meester; Emma E F Kleipool; Louis Handoko; Albert C van Rossum; Su-San Liem; Marijke C Trappenburg; Mike J L Peters; Majon Muller Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-04-08
Authors: Anne-Carina Scharf; Janine Gronewold; Christian Dahlmann; Jeanina Schlitzer; Andreas Kribben; Guido Gerken; Tienush Rassaf; Christoph Kleinschnitz; Richard Dodel; Helmut Frohnhofen; Dirk M Hermann Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Amy L Tin; Daniel D Sjoberg; Brian Jang; Nicole Benfante; Saman Sarraf; Harry Herr; S Machele Donat; Guido Dalbagni; Bernard Bochner; Armin Shahrokni; Alvin C Goh Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 7.450