You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for
- Author: Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki x
- Refine by Access: All x
Armin Shahrokni, Bella Marie Vishnevsky, Brian Jang, Saman Sarraf, Koshy Alexander, Soo Jung Kim, Robert Downey, Anoushka Afonso, and Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki
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.
Armin Shahrokni, Amy Tin, Robert J. Downey, Vivian Strong, Sanam Mahmoudzadeh, Manpreet K. Boparai, Sincere McMillan, Andrew Vickers, and Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki
Background: The American College of Surgeons and American Geriatrics Society recommend performing a geriatric assessment (GA) in the preoperative evaluation of older patients. To address this, we developed an electronic GA, the Electronic Rapid Fitness Assessment (eRFA). We reviewed the feasibility and clinical utility of the eRFA in the preoperative evaluation of geriatric patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of our experience using the eRFA in the preoperative assessment of geriatric patients. The rate and time to completion of the eRFA were recorded. The first 50 patients who completed the assessment were asked additional questions to assess their satisfaction. Descriptive statistics of patient-reported geriatric-related data were used for analysis. Results: In 2015, 636 older patients with cancer (median age, 80 years) completed the eRFA during preoperative evaluation. The median time to completion was 11 minutes (95% CI, 11–12 minutes). Only 13% of patients needed someone else to complete the assessment for them. Of the first 50 patients, 88% (95% CI, 75%–95%) responded that answering questions using the eRFA was easy. Geriatric syndromes were commonly identified through the performance of the GA: 16% of patients had a positive screening for cognitive impairment, 22% (95% CI, 19%–26%) needed a cane to ambulate, and 26% (95% CI, 23%–30%) had fallen at least once during the previous year. Conclusions: Implementation of the eRFA was feasible. The eRFA identified relevant geriatric syndromes in the preoperative setting that, if addressed, could lead to improved outcomes.
Arti Hurria, Tanya Wildes, Sarah L. Blair, Ilene S. Browner, Harvey Jay Cohen, Mollie deShazo, Efrat Dotan, Barish H. Edil, Martine Extermann, Apar Kishor P. Ganti, Holly M. Holmes, Reshma Jagsi, Mohana B. Karlekar, Nancy L. Keating, Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki, June M. McKoy, Bruno C. Medeiros, Ewa Mrozek, Tracey O’Connor, Hope S. Rugo, Randall W. Rupper, Rebecca A. Silliman, Derek L. Stirewalt, William P. Tew, Louise C. Walter, Alva B. Weir III, Mary Anne Bergman, and Hema Sundar
Cancer is the leading cause of death in older adults aged 60 to 79 years. The biology of certain cancers and responsiveness to therapy changes with the patient’s age. Advanced age alone should not preclude the use of effective treatment that could improve quality of life or extend meaningful survival. The challenge of managing older patients with cancer is to assess whether the expected benefits of treatment are superior to the risk in a population with decreased life expectancy and decreased tolerance to stress. These guidelines provide an approach to decision-making in older cancer patients based on comprehensive geriatric assessment and also include diseasespecific issues related to age in the management of some cancer types in older adults.
Noam VanderWalde, Reshma Jagsi, Efrat Dotan, Joel Baumgartner, Ilene S. Browner, Peggy Burhenn, Harvey Jay Cohen, Barish H. Edil, Beatrice Edwards, Martine Extermann, Apar Kishor P. Ganti, Cary Gross, Joleen Hubbard, Nancy L. Keating, Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki, June M. McKoy, Bruno C. Medeiros, Ewa Mrozek, Tracey O'Connor, Hope S. Rugo, Randall W. Rupper, Dale Shepard, Rebecca A. Silliman, Derek L. Stirewalt, William P. Tew, Louise C. Walter, Tanya Wildes, Mary Anne Bergman, Hema Sundar, and Arti Hurria
Cancer is the leading cause of death in older adults aged 60 to 79 years. Older patients with good performance status are able to tolerate commonly used treatment modalities as well as younger patients, particularly when adequate supportive care is provided. For older patients who are able to tolerate curative treatment, options include surgery, radiation therapy (RT), chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. RT can be highly effective and well tolerated in carefully selected patients, and advanced age alone should not preclude the use of RT in older patients with cancer. Judicious application of advanced RT techniques that facilitate normal tissue sparing and reduce RT doses to organs at risk are important for all patients, and may help to assuage concerns about the risks of RT in older adults. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the recent updates to the 2016 NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology specific to the use of RT in the management of older adults with cancer.
NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Older Adult Oncology, Version 1.2021
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Efrat Dotan, Louise C. Walter, Ilene S. Browner, Katherine Clifton, Harvey Jay Cohen, Martine Extermann, Cary Gross, Sumati Gupta, Genevieve Hollis, Joleen Hubbard, Reshma Jagsi, Nancy L. Keating, Elizabeth Kessler, Thuy Koll, Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki, June M. McKoy, Sumi Misra, Dominic Moon, Tracey O’Connor, Cynthia Owusu, Ashley Rosko, Marcia Russell, Mina Sedrak, Fareeha Siddiqui, Amy Stella, Derek L. Stirewalt, Ishwaria M. Subbiah, William P. Tew, Grant R. Williams, Liz Hollinger, Giby V. George, and Hema Sundar
The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology address specific issues related to the management of cancer in older adults, including screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), assessing the risks and benefits of treatment, preventing or decreasing complications from therapy, and managing patients deemed to be at high risk for treatment-related toxicity. CGA is a multidisciplinary, in-depth evaluation that assesses the objective health of the older adult while evaluating multiple domains, which may affect cancer prognosis and treatment choices. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines providing specific practical framework for the use of CGA when evaluating older adults with cancer.