Grant R Williams1, Kathryn E Weaver2,3, Glenn J Lesser2, Emily Dressler2,4, Karen M Winkfield2, Heather B Neuman5, Anne E Kazak6, Ruth Carlos7, Lucy J Gansauer8, Charles S Kamen9, Joseph M Unger10, Supriya G Mohile9, Heidi D Klepin2. 1. O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. 2. Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 5. Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 6. Nemours Children's Health System, Wilmington, Delaware, USA. 7. University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 8. Spartanburg Regional Medical Center, Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA. 9. James Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA. 10. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend that patients ≥65 years of age starting chemotherapy undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to inform and guide management; however, little is known about resources available in community oncology practices to implement these guidelines and to facilitate geriatric oncology research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were electronically surveyed in 2017 regarding the availability of specialty providers, supportive services, and practice characteristics, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research capacity. RESULTS: Of the 943 NCORP practices, 504 (54%) responded to the survey, representing 210 practice groups. The median new cancer cases per year ≥65 years of age was 457 (interquartile range 227-939). Of respondents, only 2.0% of practices had a fellowship-trained geriatric oncologist on staff. Geriatricians were available for consultation or comanagement at 37% of sites, and of those, only 13% had availability within the oncology clinic (5% of overall). Practice size of ≥1,000 new adult cancer cases (ages ≥18) per year was associated with higher odds (1.81, confidence interval 1.02-3.23) of geriatrician availability. Other multidisciplinary care professionals that could support GA were variably available onsite: social worker (84%), nurse navigator (81%), pharmacist (77%), dietician (71%), rehabilitative medicine (57%), psychologist (42%), and psychiatrist (37%). CONCLUSION: Only a third of community oncology practices have access to a geriatrician within their group and only 5% of community sites have access within the oncology clinic. Use of primarily self-administered GA tools that direct referrals to available services may be an effective implementation strategy for guideline-based care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Only a minority of community oncology practices in the U.S. have access to geriatric specialty care. Developing models of care that use patient-reported measures and/or other geriatric screening tools to assess and guide interventions in older adults, rather than geriatric consultations, are likely the most practical methods to improve the care of this vulnerable population.
BACKGROUND: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend that patients ≥65 years of age starting chemotherapy undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to inform and guide management; however, little is known about resources available in community oncology practices to implement these guidelines and to facilitate geriatric oncology research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were electronically surveyed in 2017 regarding the availability of specialty providers, supportive services, and practice characteristics, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research capacity. RESULTS: Of the 943 NCORP practices, 504 (54%) responded to the survey, representing 210 practice groups. The median new cancer cases per year ≥65 years of age was 457 (interquartile range 227-939). Of respondents, only 2.0% of practices had a fellowship-trained geriatric oncologist on staff. Geriatricians were available for consultation or comanagement at 37% of sites, and of those, only 13% had availability within the oncology clinic (5% of overall). Practice size of ≥1,000 new adult cancer cases (ages ≥18) per year was associated with higher odds (1.81, confidence interval 1.02-3.23) of geriatrician availability. Other multidisciplinary care professionals that could support GA were variably available onsite: social worker (84%), nurse navigator (81%), pharmacist (77%), dietician (71%), rehabilitative medicine (57%), psychologist (42%), and psychiatrist (37%). CONCLUSION: Only a third of community oncology practices have access to a geriatrician within their group and only 5% of community sites have access within the oncology clinic. Use of primarily self-administered GA tools that direct referrals to available services may be an effective implementation strategy for guideline-based care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Only a minority of community oncology practices in the U.S. have access to geriatric specialty care. Developing models of care that use patient-reported measures and/or other geriatric screening tools to assess and guide interventions in older adults, rather than geriatric consultations, are likely the most practical methods to improve the care of this vulnerable population.
Authors: Grant R Williams; Kelly M Kenzik; Mariel Parman; Mustafa Al-Obaidi; Liton Francisco; Gabrielle B Rocque; Andrew McDonald; Ravi Paluri; Rudolph M Navari; Lakshmin Nandagopal; Olumide Gbolahan; Crystal Young-Smith; Matthew Robertson; Smita Bhatia Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Allison Magnuson; Heather Allore; Harvey Jay Cohen; Supriya G Mohile; Grant R Williams; Andrew Chapman; Martine Extermann; Rebecca L Olin; Valerie Targia; Amy Mackenzie; Holly M Holmes; Arti Hurria Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Mackenzi Pergolotti; Michelle M Langer; Allison M Deal; Hyman B Muss; Kirsten Nyrop; Grant Williams Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Erika Ramsdale; Eva Culakova; Jason H Mendler; Jane L Liesveld; Kristen M O'Dwyer; Colin McHugh; Maxence Gilles; Terri Lloyd; Molly Goodman; Heidi D Klepin; Karen M Mustian; Rebecca Schnall; Supriya G Mohile Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2018-10-29
Authors: Darryl Outlaw; Maya Abdallah; Luiz A Gil-Jr; Smith Giri; Tina Hsu; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Gabor Liposits; Tânia Madureira; Joana Marinho; Ishwaria M Subbiah; Gina Tuch; Grant R Williams Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Clark DuMontier; Hajime Uno; Tammy Hshieh; Guohai Zhou; Richard Chen; Emily S Magnavita; Lee Mozessohn; Houman Javedan; Richard M Stone; Robert J Soiffer; Jane A Driver; Gregory A Abel Journal: Haematologica Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 11.047
Authors: Lindsay C Kobayashi; Ashly C Westrick; Aalap Doshi; Katrina R Ellis; Carly R Jones; Elizabeth LaPensee; Alison M Mondul; Megan A Mullins; Lauren P Wallner Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Shellie D Ellis; Riha Vaidya; Joseph M Unger; Kelly Stratton; Jessie Gills; Peter Van Veldhuizen; Eileen Mederos; Emily V Dressler; Matthew F Hudson; Charles Kamen; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth C Carlos; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-08-14