Geriatric assessment and the variance of treatment recommendations in geriatric patients with gastrointestinal cancer-a study in AIO oncologists.


Journal

ESMO open
ISSN: 2059-7029
Titre abrégé: ESMO Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101690685

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2023
Historique:
received: 17 06 2022
revised: 27 11 2022
accepted: 30 11 2022
pubmed: 14 1 2023
medline: 8 3 2023
entrez: 13 1 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to detect vulnerabilities for elderly cancer patients. To assess whether results of GA actually influence the treatment recommendations, we conducted a case vignette-based study in medical oncologists. Seventy oncologists gave their medical treatment recommendations for a maximum of 4 out of 10 gastrointestinal cancer patients in three steps: (i) based on tumor findings alone to simulate the guideline recommendation for a '50-year-old standard patient without comorbidities'; (ii) for the same situation in elderly patients (median age 77.5 years) according to the comorbidities, laboratory values and a short video simulating the clinical consultation; and (iii) after the results of a full GA including interpretation aid [Barthel Index, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), Geriatric 8 (G8), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Timed Get Up and Go (TGUG), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), stair climb test]. Data on 164 treatment recommendations were analyzed. The recommendations had a significantly higher variance for elderly patients than for 'standard' patients (944 versus 602, P < 0.0001) indicating a lower agreement between oncologists. Knowledge on GA had marginal influence on the treatment recommendation or its variance (944 versus 940, P = 0.92). There was no statistically significant influence of the working place or the years of experience in oncology on the variance of recommendations. The geriatric tools were rated approximately two times higher as being 'meaningful' (53%) and 'useful for the presented cases' (49%) than they were 'used in clinical practice' (19%). The most commonly used geriatric tool in patient care was the MNA (30%). The higher variance of treatment recommendations indicates that it is less likely for elderly patients to get the optimal recommendation. Although the proposed therapeutic regimen varied higher in elderly patients and the oncologists rated the GA results as 'useful', the GA results did not influence the individual recommendations or its variance. Continuing education on GA and research on implementation into clinical practice are needed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to detect vulnerabilities for elderly cancer patients. To assess whether results of GA actually influence the treatment recommendations, we conducted a case vignette-based study in medical oncologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Seventy oncologists gave their medical treatment recommendations for a maximum of 4 out of 10 gastrointestinal cancer patients in three steps: (i) based on tumor findings alone to simulate the guideline recommendation for a '50-year-old standard patient without comorbidities'; (ii) for the same situation in elderly patients (median age 77.5 years) according to the comorbidities, laboratory values and a short video simulating the clinical consultation; and (iii) after the results of a full GA including interpretation aid [Barthel Index, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), Geriatric 8 (G8), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Timed Get Up and Go (TGUG), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), stair climb test].
RESULTS
Data on 164 treatment recommendations were analyzed. The recommendations had a significantly higher variance for elderly patients than for 'standard' patients (944 versus 602, P < 0.0001) indicating a lower agreement between oncologists. Knowledge on GA had marginal influence on the treatment recommendation or its variance (944 versus 940, P = 0.92). There was no statistically significant influence of the working place or the years of experience in oncology on the variance of recommendations. The geriatric tools were rated approximately two times higher as being 'meaningful' (53%) and 'useful for the presented cases' (49%) than they were 'used in clinical practice' (19%). The most commonly used geriatric tool in patient care was the MNA (30%).
CONCLUSIONS
The higher variance of treatment recommendations indicates that it is less likely for elderly patients to get the optimal recommendation. Although the proposed therapeutic regimen varied higher in elderly patients and the oncologists rated the GA results as 'useful', the GA results did not influence the individual recommendations or its variance. Continuing education on GA and research on implementation into clinical practice are needed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36638708
pii: S2059-7029(22)00395-7
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100761
pmc: PMC10024156
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

100761

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Funding This work was supported by the institution (Technical University Dresden/University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus). There was no additional funding.

Références

N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 30;341(27):2061-7
pubmed: 10615079
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Apr 20;27(12):1948-55
pubmed: 19255311
Oncologist. 2015 Apr;20(4):379-85
pubmed: 25765876
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2595-603
pubmed: 25071125
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Jun;46(9):1502-13
pubmed: 20227872
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Nov 01;7(11):e214158
pubmed: 34591080
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Feb;208(2):202-9
pubmed: 19228531
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Mar;16(3):301-309
pubmed: 29523669
J Geriatr Oncol. 2010 Jun 1;1(1):40-44
pubmed: 21218146
Eur J Cancer. 2007 Oct;43(15):2235-41
pubmed: 17686626
J Geriatr Oncol. 2021 Jan;12(1):41-48
pubmed: 32747208
J Geriatr Oncol. 2013 Jul;4(3):235-41
pubmed: 24070461
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 10;27(17):2758-65
pubmed: 19403886
J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Nov;10(6):847-858
pubmed: 31078444
J Oncol Pract. 2016 Jul;12(7):653-62
pubmed: 27271507
Am Fam Physician. 2018 Jun 15;97(12):776-784
pubmed: 30216018
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Aug 1;74(5):1376-84
pubmed: 19409730
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 1;23(28):6865-72
pubmed: 16192578
J Oncol Pract. 2008 May;4(3):108-13
pubmed: 20856612
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May;4(5):376-388
pubmed: 30852136
Oncologist. 2010;15(6):584-92
pubmed: 20495217
Eur J Cancer. 1996 Jun;32A(7):1135-41
pubmed: 8758243
J Geriatr Oncol. 2013 Jul;4(3):208-17
pubmed: 24070459
Cancer. 1994 Oct 1;74(7 Suppl):2208-14
pubmed: 8087794
Ann Oncol. 2015 Feb;26(2):288-300
pubmed: 24936581
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Apr 18;104(8):581-9
pubmed: 22457474
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jan;71(1):78-92
pubmed: 33002206
Oncologist. 2012;17(11):1439-49
pubmed: 22941970
J Geriatr Oncol. 2018 Nov;9(6):575-582
pubmed: 29871849
Ann Oncol. 2013 May;24(5):1306-12
pubmed: 23293115
Cancer. 2012 Jul 1;118(13):3377-86
pubmed: 22072065
JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Jun;17(6):336-344
pubmed: 33064058
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun 10;30(17):2036-8
pubmed: 22547597
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2532-7
pubmed: 18487570
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;36(22):2326-2347
pubmed: 29782209
J Geriatr Oncol. 2022 Jul;13(6):761-777
pubmed: 35545495
J Oncol Pract. 2014 Sep;10(5):e335-41
pubmed: 25118208
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 16;141(10):771-80
pubmed: 15545677
Br J Cancer. 2008 Apr 8;98(7):1197-203
pubmed: 18349836
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69(6):640-9
pubmed: 24249734
Lancet. 2011 May 21;377(9779):1749-59
pubmed: 21570111
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 1;29(25):3457-65
pubmed: 21810685
Lancet. 2021 Nov 20;398(10314):1894-1904
pubmed: 34741815
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2366-71
pubmed: 27185838
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Feb;26(2):605-613
pubmed: 28914366
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3826-33
pubmed: 26195697
J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Jun;8(6):744-52
pubmed: 23571473

Auteurs

M Büttelmann (M)

TU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany.

R D Hofheinz (RD)

University Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

A Kröcher (A)

TU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany.

U Ubbelohde (U)

TU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany.

S Stintzing (S)

Charité - Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Cancer Immunology (CCM), Berlin, Germany.

A Reinacher-Schick (A)

Ruhr University Bochum, St. Josef Hospital, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Bochum, Germany.

M Bornhäuser (M)

TU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany.

G Folprecht (G)

TU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: Gunnar.Folprecht@uniklinikum-dresden.de.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH