Timothy H M To1, Wee Kheng Soo2, Heather Lane3, Adnan Khattak4, Christopher Steer5, Bianca Devitt6, Haryana M Dhillon7, Anne Booms8, Jane Phillips9. 1. Division Rehabilitation, Aged Care and Palliative Care, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia; College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: Timothy.To@sa.gov.au. 2. Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Victoria, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Eastern Health, Victoria, Australia; Department of Geriatric Medicine, Eastern Health, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: kheng.soo@monash.edu. 3. Rockingham General Hospital, Rockingham, Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: Heather.Lane@health.wa.gov.au. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia; Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: adnan.khattak@health.wa.gov.au. 5. Border Medical Oncology, Albury, New South Wales, Australia; Rural Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Albury, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: christopher.steer@bordermedonc.com.au. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Eastern Health, Victoria, Australia; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: bianca.devitt@monash.edu. 7. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: haryana.dhillon@sydney.edu.au. 8. Capital Regional Cancer Centre, ACT Health, Garran, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; John James Medical Centre, Deakin, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; National Capital Private Hospital, Garran, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; School of Nursing, The University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 9. Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: Jane.Phillips@uts.edu.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) is a multidimensional health assessment of the older person to evaluate their physical and cognitive function, comorbidities, nutrition, medications, psychological state, and social supports. GA may help oncologists optimise care for older patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to explore the views of Australian medical oncologists regarding the incorporation of geriatric screening tools, GA and collaboration with geriatricians into routine clinical practice. METHODS: Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia were invited to complete an online survey that evaluated respondent demographics, practice characteristics, treatment decision-making factors, use of GA, and access to geriatricians. RESULTS: Sixty-nine respondents identified comorbidities, polypharmacy, and poor functional status as the most frequent challenges in caring for older patients with cancer. Physical function, social supports and nutrition were the most frequent factors influencing treatment decision-making. The majority of respondents perceived value in GA and geriatrician review, although access was a barrier for referral. Such services would need to be responsive, providing reports within two weeks for the majority of respondents. CONCLUSION: Despite an emerging evidence base for the potential benefits of GA and collaboration with geriatricians, medical oncologists reported a lack of access but a desire to engage with these services.
INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) is a multidimensional health assessment of the older person to evaluate their physical and cognitive function, comorbidities, nutrition, medications, psychological state, and social supports. GA may help oncologists optimise care for older patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to explore the views of Australian medical oncologists regarding the incorporation of geriatric screening tools, GA and collaboration with geriatricians into routine clinical practice. METHODS: Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia were invited to complete an online survey that evaluated respondent demographics, practice characteristics, treatment decision-making factors, use of GA, and access to geriatricians. RESULTS: Sixty-nine respondents identified comorbidities, polypharmacy, and poor functional status as the most frequent challenges in caring for older patients with cancer. Physical function, social supports and nutrition were the most frequent factors influencing treatment decision-making. The majority of respondents perceived value in GA and geriatrician review, although access was a barrier for referral. Such services would need to be responsive, providing reports within two weeks for the majority of respondents. CONCLUSION: Despite an emerging evidence base for the potential benefits of GA and collaboration with geriatricians, medical oncologists reported a lack of access but a desire to engage with these services.
Authors: Haydee C Verduzco-Aguirre; Laura M Bolaño Guerra; Eva Culakova; Javier Monroy Chargoy; Hector Martínez-Said; Gregorio Quintero Beulo; Supriya G Mohile; Enrique Soto-Perez-De-Celis Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2022-03