Search Results

Background: Structured care processes that provide a framework for how oncologists can incorporate geriatric assessment (GA) into clinical practice could improve outcomes for vulnerable older adults with cancer, a growing population at high risk of toxicity from cancer treatment. We sought to obtain consensus from an expert panel on the use of GA in clinical practice and to develop algorithms of GA-guided care processes. Methods: The Delphi technique, a well-recognized structured and reiterative process to reach consensus, was used. Participants were geriatric oncology experts who attended NIH-funded U13 or Cancer and Aging Research Group conferences. Consensus was defined as an interquartile range of 2 or more units, or 66.7% or greater, selecting a utility/helpfulness rating of 7 or greater on a 10-point Likert scale. For nominal data, consensus was defined as agreement among 66.7% or more of the group. Results: From 33 invited, 30 participants completed all 3 rounds. Most experts (75%) used GA in clinical care, and the remainder were involved in geriatric oncology research. The panel met consensus that “all patients aged 75 years or older and those who are younger with age-related health concerns” should undergo GA and that all domains (function, physical performance, comorbidity/polypharmacy, cognition, nutrition, psychological status, and social support) should be included. Consensus was met for how GA could guide nononcologic interventions and cancer treatment decisions. Algorithms for GA-guided care processes were developed. Conclusions: This Delphi investigation of geriatric oncology experts demonstrated that GA should be performed for older patients with cancer to guide care processes.

Background: There is minimal data evaluating the safety of antibiotic de-escalation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with fever and ongoing neutropenia. Therefore, this study evaluated antibiotic prescribing, infection-related outcomes, and patient outcomes of an antibiotic de-escalation initiative. Patients and Methods: This pre–post quasiexperimental study included adult patients with AML hospitalized with febrile neutropenia. An antibiotic de-escalation guideline was implemented in January 2017, which promoted de-escalation or discontinuation of intravenous antipseudomonal β-lactams. The primary outcome assessment was the incidence of bacterial infection in a historical control group before guideline implementation compared with an intervention group after guideline implementation. Results: A total of 93 patients were included. Antibiotic de-escalation occurred more frequently in the intervention group (71.7% vs 7.5%; P<.001), which resulted in fewer days of therapy for intravenous antipseudomonal β-lactams (14 vs 25 days; P<.001). Thirty-day all-cause mortality and length of hospitalization were not different between groups. However, the intervention group had significantly fewer episodes of Clostridioides difficile colitis (5.7% vs 27.5%; P=.007). Conclusions: Implementation of an antibiotic de-escalation guideline resulted in decreased use of intravenous antipseudomonal β-lactams and fewer episodes of C difficile colitis, without adversely impacting patient outcomes. Additional studies are needed, preferably in the form of randomized controlled trials, to confirm these results.

Background: Patient preferences (quantity vs quality of life; present vs future health) have not been investigated in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). The goal of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate patient values toward treatment goals and competing health outcomes among adults with NETs. Patients and Methods: Patients with well-differentiated, grade 1 or 2, advanced NETs starting a new systemic therapy completed 4 tools: (1) Health Outcomes Tool, which ranks the importance of 4 outcomes (survival, function/independence, freedom from pain, freedom from symptoms); (2) Attitude Scale, which identifies the extent to which patients agree with statements related to health outcomes; (3) Now versus Later Tool, which ranks the relative importance of quality of life (QoL) now versus 1 and 5 years from now; and (4) Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire, which identifies the amount of information the patient prefers to receive about their disease and treatment, the patient’s treatment goal, the patient’s perception of the physician’s treatment goal, and self-reported health status. Results: We recruited 60 patients with NETs (50.0% aged ≥65 years; 96.7% with stage IV disease). Primary tumor locations included the gastrointestinal tract (41.7%), pancreas (30.0%), and lung (21.7%). A plurality of patients reported maintaining independence as their most important health outcome (46.7%), followed by survival (30.0%), freedom from pain (11.7%), and freedom from symptoms (11.7%). A total of 67% of patients agreed with the statement, “I would rather live a shorter life than lose my ability to take care of myself”; 85.0% agreed with the statement, “It is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible.” When asked to choose between current QoL versus QoL 1 year or 5 years in the future as more important, 48.3% and 40.0% of patients valued their QoL 1 year and 5 years in the future, respectively, more than their current QoL. Only 51.7% of patients believed their physician’s treatment goals aligned with their own. Conclusions: Adult patients with NETs strongly value independence over survival. More communication between patients with NETs and their physicians is needed to ensure that patient preferences are incorporated into treatment plans.

Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients’ palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients’ quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen’s d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect. Results: From February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (–0.77 vs –3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (–0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs –0.80; ES = 0.38). Conclusions: In this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients’ unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients’ QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN panel’s discussions and guideline updates from 2013 and 2014. These include modifications/additions to palliative care screening and assessment protocols, new considerations for discussing the benefits and risks of anticancer therapy, and approaches to advance care planning. Recent updates focus on enhanced patient-centered care and seek to promote earlier integration of palliative care and advance care planning in oncology.

Background: This study's objectives were to describe community oncologists' beliefs about and confidence with geriatric care and to determine whether geriatric-relevant information influences cancer treatment decisions. Methods: Community oncologists were recruited to participate in 2 multisite geriatric oncology trials. Participants shared their beliefs about and confidence in caring for older adults. They were also asked to make a first-line chemotherapy recommendation (combination vs single-agent vs no chemotherapy) for a hypothetical vignette of an older patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. Each oncologist received one randomly chosen vignette that varied on 3 variables: age (72/84 years), impaired function (yes/no), and cognitive impairment (yes/no). Other patient characteristics were held constant. Logistic regression models were used to identify associations between oncologist/vignette-patient characteristics and treatment decisions. Results: Oncologist response rate was 61% (n=305/498). Most oncologists agreed that “the care of older adults with cancer needs to be improved” (89%) and that “geriatrics training is essential” (72%). However, <25% were “very confident” in recognizing dementia or conducting a fall risk or functional assessment, and only 23% reported using the geriatric assessment in clinic. Each randomly varied patient characteristic was independently associated with the decision to treat: younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.01; 95% CI, 2.73–9.20), normal cognition (aOR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.01–9.76), and being functionally intact (aOR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.12–7.00). Accounting for all vignettes across all scenarios, 161 oncologists (52%) said they would offer chemotherapy. All variables were independently associated with prescribing single-agent over combination chemotherapy (older age: aOR, 3.22; 95% CI 1.43–7.25, impaired cognition: aOR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.36–7.20, impaired function: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.12–5.72). Oncologists' characteristics were not associated with decisions about providing chemotherapy. Conclusion: Geriatric-relevant information, when available, strongly influences community oncologists' treatment decisions.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. The NCCN Guidelines are intended to provide guidance to the primary oncology team on the integration of palliative care into oncology. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel's recommendations seek to ensure that each patient experiences the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory. Accordingly, the NCCN Guidelines outline best practices for screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and after-death care.