Suzanne Festen1, Maaike Kok2, Jana S Hopstaken3, Hanneke van der Wal-Huisman3, Annya van der Leest4, Anna K L Reyners2, Geertruida H de Bock5, Pauline de Graeff6, Barbara L van Leeuwen3. 1. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, University Center for Geriatric Medicine, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: s.festen@umcg.nl. 2. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Groningen, the Netherlands. 3. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Surgery, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groningen, the Netherlands. 5. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, Groningen, the Netherlands. 6. University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, University Center for Geriatric Medicine, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With the accumulating evidence on the added value on prediction of outcomes of geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer, the question shifts from whether performing a GA is useful, to how to implement this into standard practice in a feasible and effective way. The effect of implementing GA, and assessment of patient preferences on treatment recommendations by an onco-geriatric multidisciplinary team (MDT), was compared to the recommendation previously made by the tumor board (care as usual). METHODS: Patients aged 70 years and older with a solid malignancy who were referred to a tertiary care center for diagnosis and treatment recommendations, as provided by a tumor board, were included. The intervention consisted of: a nurse-led GA and assessment of patient preferences prior to the start of oncological treatment, discussing this in an onco-geriatric MDT, and weighing all this information in a structured, stepwise manner. Treatment recommendations formulated by this onco-geriatric MDT were compared to the treatment recommendations by the tumor board. RESULTS: Of 236 eligible patients, 197 were included. For 27%, treatment recommendations from the onco-geriatric MDT differed from the recommendations formulated by the tumor board. These modifications were mostly towards less intensive curative or palliative treatment. Thirteen percent of patients were subsequently referred to a geriatrician in order to reach a treatment recommendation. DISCUSSION: Implementing an onco-geriatric care trajectory, using GA and assessment of patient preferences, resulted in an adjustment of treatment recommendations for a quarter of patients. Thirteen percent needed subsequent referral to a geriatrician.
INTRODUCTION: With the accumulating evidence on the added value on prediction of outcomes of geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer, the question shifts from whether performing a GA is useful, to how to implement this into standard practice in a feasible and effective way. The effect of implementing GA, and assessment of patient preferences on treatment recommendations by an onco-geriatric multidisciplinary team (MDT), was compared to the recommendation previously made by the tumor board (care as usual). METHODS:Patients aged 70 years and older with a solid malignancy who were referred to a tertiary care center for diagnosis and treatment recommendations, as provided by a tumor board, were included. The intervention consisted of: a nurse-led GA and assessment of patient preferences prior to the start of oncological treatment, discussing this in an onco-geriatric MDT, and weighing all this information in a structured, stepwise manner. Treatment recommendations formulated by this onco-geriatric MDT were compared to the treatment recommendations by the tumor board. RESULTS: Of 236 eligible patients, 197 were included. For 27%, treatment recommendations from the onco-geriatric MDT differed from the recommendations formulated by the tumor board. These modifications were mostly towards less intensive curative or palliative treatment. Thirteen percent of patients were subsequently referred to a geriatrician in order to reach a treatment recommendation. DISCUSSION: Implementing an onco-geriatric care trajectory, using GA and assessment of patient preferences, resulted in an adjustment of treatment recommendations for a quarter of patients. Thirteen percent needed subsequent referral to a geriatrician.
Authors: Grant R Williams; Kathryn E Weaver; Glenn J Lesser; Emily Dressler; Karen M Winkfield; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth Carlos; Lucy J Gansauer; Charles S Kamen; Joseph M Unger; Supriya G Mohile; Heidi D Klepin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-08-31
Authors: William Dale; Grant R Williams; Amy R MacKenzie; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; Ronald J Maggiore; Janette K Merrill; Sweatha Katta; Kimberly T Smith; Heidi D Klepin Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Lidia S van Huizen; Pieter U Dijkstra; Patrick H J Hemmer; Boudewijn van Etten; Carlijn I Buis; Linde Olsder; Frederike G I van Vilsteren; Kees C T B Ahaus; Jan L N Roodenburg Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Carlijn G N Voorend; Noeleen C Berkhout-Byrne; Yvette Meuleman; Simon P Mooijaart; Willem Jan W Bos; Marjolijn van Buren Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Petronella A L Nelleke Seghers; Anke Wiersma; Suzanne Festen; Mariken E Stegmann; Pierre Soubeyran; Siri Rostoft; Shane O'Hanlon; Johanneke E A Portielje; Marije E Hamaker Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Bea L Dijkman; Wolter Paans; Hanneke Van der Wal-Huisman; Barbara L van Leeuwen; Marie Louise Luttik Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Carlijn G N Voorend; Hanneke Joosten; Noeleen C Berkhout-Byrne; Adry Diepenbroek; Casper F M Franssen; Willem Jan W Bos; Marjolijn Van Buren; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Rosanne C Schoonbeek; Suzanne Festen; Roza Rashid; Boukje A C van Dijk; György B Halmos; Lilly-Ann van der Velden Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 5.591