PURPOSE: This study determined whether an electronic version of the geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional, diverse setting. METHODS: Ten sites within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology participated. Patients who had active cancer or a history of cancer and were 65 years of age or older were eligible. The geriatric assessment was completed with an electronic data capture system that had been loaded onto iPads. Feasibility was defined a priori as completion in at least 70% of patients either with or without help. To enhance racial diversity, the original sample size was later changed and augmented by 50% with the intention of increasing enrollment of older minority patients. RESULTS: A total of one hundred fifty-four patients were registered with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-91 years). Forty-three (28%) identified themselves as African American or Black. One hundred forty-one patients (92%) completed the electronic geriatric assessment. Feasibility was observed across all subgroups, regardless of race, education, performance status, comorbidities, and cognition; 124 patients (81%) completed the geriatric assessment without help. Reasons for not completing the geriatric assessment are as follows: clinic visit did not occur (n = 6), no iPad connection to the Internet (n = 3), patient declined (n = 2), prolonged hospitalization (n = 1), and patient died (n = 1). Reasons for needing help, as reported by study personnel, were as follows: the patient preferred that research personnel ask the questions (n = 9), vision problem (n = 3), lack of comfort with the iPad (n = 2), questions were not clear (n = 1), less proficient in English (n = 1), and challenge in pressing the green button to go to the next question (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The electronic geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional setting that includes a notable proportion of African American or Black patients.
PURPOSE: This study determined whether an electronic version of the geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional, diverse setting. METHODS: Ten sites within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology participated. Patients who had active cancer or a history of cancer and were 65 years of age or older were eligible. The geriatric assessment was completed with an electronic data capture system that had been loaded onto iPads. Feasibility was defined a priori as completion in at least 70% of patients either with or without help. To enhance racial diversity, the original sample size was later changed and augmented by 50% with the intention of increasing enrollment of older minority patients. RESULTS: A total of one hundred fifty-four patients were registered with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-91 years). Forty-three (28%) identified themselves as African American or Black. One hundred forty-one patients (92%) completed the electronic geriatric assessment. Feasibility was observed across all subgroups, regardless of race, education, performance status, comorbidities, and cognition; 124 patients (81%) completed the geriatric assessment without help. Reasons for not completing the geriatric assessment are as follows: clinic visit did not occur (n = 6), no iPad connection to the Internet (n = 3), patient declined (n = 2), prolonged hospitalization (n = 1), and patient died (n = 1). Reasons for needing help, as reported by study personnel, were as follows: the patient preferred that research personnel ask the questions (n = 9), vision problem (n = 3), lack of comfort with the iPad (n = 2), questions were not clear (n = 1), less proficient in English (n = 1), and challenge in pressing the green button to go to the next question (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The electronic geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional setting that includes a notable proportion of African American or Black patients.
Authors: Jennifer A Woyach; Amy S Ruppert; Nyla A Heerema; Weiqiang Zhao; Allison M Booth; Wei Ding; Nancy L Bartlett; Danielle M Brander; Paul M Barr; Kerry A Rogers; Sameer A Parikh; Steven Coutre; Arti Hurria; Jennifer R Brown; Gerard Lozanski; James S Blachly; Hatice G Ozer; Brittny Major-Elechi; Briant Fruth; Sreenivasa Nattam; Richard A Larson; Harry Erba; Mark Litzow; Carolyn Owen; Charles Kuzma; Jeremy S Abramson; Richard F Little; Scott E Smith; Richard M Stone; Sumithra J Mandrekar; John C Byrd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Decoster; K Van Puyvelde; S Mohile; U Wedding; U Basso; G Colloca; S Rostoft; J Overcash; H Wildiers; C Steer; G Kimmick; R Kanesvaran; A Luciani; C Terret; A Hurria; C Kenis; R Audisio; M Extermann Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Supriya G Mohile; William Dale; Mark R Somerfield; Mara A Schonberg; Cynthia M Boyd; Peggy S Burhenn; Beverly Canin; Harvey Jay Cohen; Holly M Holmes; Judith O Hopkins; Michelle C Janelsins; Alok A Khorana; Heidi D Klepin; Stuart M Lichtman; Karen M Mustian; William P Tew; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith; Arti Hurria; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David A Rorie; Robert W V Flynn; Kerr Grieve; Alexander Doney; Isla Mackenzie; Thomas M MacDonald; Amy Rogers Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-04-22 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Isabela M Bumanlag; Joseph Abi Jaoude; Michael K Rooney; Cullen M Taniguchi; Ethan B Ludmir Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 5.934
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: Olivier Mir; Marie Ferrua; Aude Fourcade; Delphine Mathivon; Adeline Duflot-Boukobza; Sarah Dumont; Eric Baudin; Suzette Delaloge; David Malka; Laurence Albiges; Patricia Pautier; Caroline Robert; David Planchard; Stéphane de Botton; Florian Scotté; François Lemare; May Abbas; Marilène Guillet; Vanessa Puglisi; Mario Di Palma; Etienne Minvielle Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Jody Underwood; Ann Raldow; Amar Kishan; Chad Zalkin; Lisa Scott Holt; Andrew Webb; Kathleen A Lynch; Thomas M Atkinson; Susan McCloskey; Daniel Navarro Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-04-12