Search Results

Background: The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA PS) classification system is the most common method of assessing preoperative functional status. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been proposed as a supplementary tool for preoperative assessment of older adults. The goal of this study was to assess the correlation between ASA classification and CGA deficits among oncogeriatric patients and to determine the association of each with 6-month survival. Patients and Methods: Oncogeriatric patients (aged ≥75 years) who underwent preoperative CGA in an outpatient geriatric clinic at a single tertiary comprehensive cancer center were identified. All patients underwent surgery, with a hospital length of stay (LOS) ≥1 day and at least 6 months of follow-up. ASA classifications were obtained from preoperative anesthesiology notes. Preoperative CGA scores ranged from 0 to 13. Six-month survival was assessed using the Social Security Death Index. Results: In total, 81 of the 980 patients (8.3%) included in the study cohort died within 6 months of surgery. Most patients were classified as ASA PS III (85.4%). The mean number of CGA deficits for patients with PS II was 4.03, PS III was 5.15, and PS IV was 6.95 (P<.001). ASA classification was significantly associated with age, preoperative albumin level, hospital LOS, and 30-day intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. On multivariable analysis, 6-month mortality was associated with number of CGA deficits (odds ratio [OR], 1.14 per each unit increase in CGA score; P=.01), 30-day ICU admissions (OR, 2.77; P=.003), hospital LOS (OR, 1.03; P=.02), and preoperative albumin level (OR, 0.36; P=.004). ASA classification was not associated with 6-month mortality. Conclusions: Number of CGA deficits was strongly associated with 6-month mortality; ASA classification was not. Preoperative CGA elicits critical information that can be used to enhance the prediction of postoperative outcomes among older patients with cancer.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed cancer care with the rapid expansion of telemedicine, but given the limited use of telemedicine in oncology, concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered. We assessed the patient experience with telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice to determine satisfaction, quality of care, and opportunities for optimization. Patients and Methods: Patients seen within a multistate comprehensive cancer center for prepandemic office visits and intrapandemic telemedicine visits in December 2019 through June 2020 who completed patient experience questionnaires were evaluated. Patient satisfaction between office and telemedicine consultations were compared, patient visit-type preferences were assessed, and factors associated with an office visit preference were determined. Results: In total, 1,077 patients were assessed (office visit, n=726; telemedicine, n=351). The telemedicine-consult survey response rate was 40%. No significant differences were seen in satisfaction scores between office and telemedicine consultations, including the appointment experience versus expectation, quality of physician’s explanation, and level of physician concern and friendliness. Among telemedicine survey respondents, 45% and 34% preferred telemedicine and office visits, respectively, and 21% had no preference for their visit type. Most respondents found their confidence in their physician (90%), understanding of the treatment plan (88%), and confidence in their treatment (87%) to be better or no different than with an office visit. Patients with better performance status and who were married/partnered were more likely to prefer in-person office visit consultations (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00–1.08]; P=.047, and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.14–5.47]; P=.009, respectively). Patients with telephone-only encounters were more likely to report better treatment plan understanding with an office visit (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.00–4.77; P=.04). Conclusions: This study is the first to assess telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice, and found high patient satisfaction and confidence in their care. Optimization of telemedicine in oncology should be a priority, specifically access to audiovisual capabilities that can improve patient–oncologist communication.

Background: We conducted a comparative survival analysis between primary androgen deprivation therapy (PADT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) based on nationwide Korean population data that included all patients with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 4,538 patients with prostate cancer from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database linked with Korean Central Cancer Registry data who were treated with PADT or RP between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2014. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate survival analyses stratified by stage (localized and locally advanced) and age (<75 and ≥75 years) were performed using a Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate treatment effects. Results: Among 18,403 patients from the NHIS database diagnosed with prostate cancer during the study period, 4,538 satisfied inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. Of these, 3,136 and 1,402 patients underwent RP or received PADT, respectively. Risk of death was significantly increased for patients who received PADT compared with those who underwent RP in the propensity score–matched cohort. In subgroup analyses stratified by stage and age, in every subgroup, patients who received PADT had a significantly increased risk of death compared with those who underwent RP. In particular, a much greater risk was observed for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Conclusions: Based on a nationwide survival analysis of nonmetastatic prostate cancer, this study provides valuable clinical implications that favor RP over PDAT for treatment of Asian populations. However, the possibility that survival differences have been overestimated due to not accounting for potential confounding characteristics must be considered.