No abstract

IMPORTANCE Older patients with cancer and their caregivers worry about the effects of cancer treatment on aging-related domains (eg, function and cognition). Quality conversations with oncologists about aging-related concerns could improve patient-centered outcomes. A geriatric assessment (GA) can capture evidence-based aging-related conditions associated with poor clinical outcomes (eg, toxic effects) for older patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE To determine whether providing a GA summary and GA-guided recommendations to oncologists can improve communication about aging-related concerns. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cluster-randomized clinical trial enrolled 541 participants from 31 community oncology practices within the University of Rochester . Patients were aged 70 years or older with an advanced solid malignant tumor or lymphoma who had at least 1 impaired GA domain; patients chose 1 caregiver to participate. The primary outcome was assessed on an intent-to-treat basis.INTERVENTIONS Oncology practices were randomized to receive either a tailored GA summary with recommendations for each enrolled patient (intervention) or alerts only for patients meeting criteria for depression or cognitive impairment (usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe predetermined primary outcome was patient satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns (modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire [score range, 0-28; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction]), measured after the first oncology visit after the GA. Secondary outcomes included the number of aging-related concerns discussed during the visit (from content analysis of audiorecordings), quality of life (measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale for patients and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey for caregivers), and caregiver satisfaction with communication about aging-related patient concerns. RESULTS A total of 541 eligible patients (264 women, 276 men, and 1 patient did not provide data; mean [SD] age, 76.6 [5.2] years) and 414 caregivers (310 women, 101 men, and 3 caregivers did not provide data; mean age, 66.5 [12.5] years) were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were more satisfied after the visit with communication about agingrelated concerns (difference in mean score, 1.09 points; 95% CI, 0.05-2.13 points; P = .04); satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns remained higher in the intervention group over 6 months (difference in mean score, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.04-2.16; P = .04). There were more aging-related conversations in the intervention group's visits (difference, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-4.95; P < .001). Caregivers in the intervention group were more satisfied with communication after the visit (difference, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.12-1.98; P = .03). Quality of life outcomes did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIncluding GA in oncology clinical visits for older adults with advanced cancer improves patient-centered and caregiver-centered communication about aging-related concerns. TRIAL...

Purpose/Objectives To describe factors related to diagnosis, identity disclosure, and social support among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) patients with cancer, and to explore associations between these factors and self-rated health. Design Cross-sectional self-report survey design using descriptive and exploratory multivariate statistical approaches. Setting Online, Internet-based. Sample 291 LGBT patients (89% Caucasian; 50% gay, 36% lesbian, 7% bisexual, 3% transgender) with mixed cancers. Methods Participants completed a researcher-designed online survey assessing experiences of cancer diagnosis among LGBT patients at a single time point. Main Research Variables Demographics, which provider(s) delivered the patients’ cancer diagnoses, to whom patients had disclosed their LGBT identity, how they disclosed, who was on their social support team at the time of diagnosis, and current self-rated health. Findings 79% of participants reported disclosing their identities to more than one cancer care provider. Participants most commonly introduced the topic of LGBT identity themselves, sometimes as a way to correct heterosexual assumptions (34%). Friends were the most common members of LGBT patients’ support teams (79%). Four disclosure and support factors were consistently associated with better self-rated health. Conclusions Disclosure of LGBT identity is a common experience in the context of cancer care, and disclosure and support factors are associated with better self-reported health among LGBT patients. Implications for Nursing Creating safe environments for LGBT patients to disclose could improve cancer care delivery to this underserved population. Nurses and other providers should acknowledge and include diverse support team members in LGBT patients’ care.

In May 2015, the Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG), in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging through a U13 grant, convened a conference to identify research priorities to help design and implement intervention studies to improve the quality of life and survivorship of older, frailer adults with cancer. Conference attendees included researchers with multidisciplinary expertise and advocates. It was concluded that future intervention trials for older adults with cancer should: 1) rigorously test interventions to prevent decline or improve health status, especially interventions focused on optimizing physical performance, nutritional status, and cognition while undergoing cancer treatment; 2) utilize standardized care plans based on geriatric assessment findings to guide targeted interventions; and 3) incorporate the principles of geriatrics into survivorship care plans. Also highlighted was the need to integrate the expertise of interdisciplinary team members into geriatric oncology research, improve funding mechanisms to support geriatric oncology research, and disseminate high-impact results to the research and clinical community. In conjunction with the prior two U13 meetings, this conference provides the framework for future research to improve the evidence base for the clinical care of older adults with cancer.

IMPORTANCE Financial toxicity (FT), unintended and unanticipated financial burden experienced by cancer patients undergoing cancer care, is associated with negative consequences and increased risk of mortality. Older patients (Ն70 years) with cancer are at risk for FT, yet data are limited on FT and whether oncologists discuss FT with their patients. OBJECTIVE To examine the prevalence of FT in older adults with advanced cancer, its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cost conversations between oncologists and patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cross-sectional secondary analysis was performed on baseline data from the Improving Communication in Older Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers study, a cluster randomized trial from 31 community oncology practices across the US that was

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the relationships between aging‐related domains captured by geriatric assessment (GA) for older patients with advanced cancer and caregivers’ emotional health and quality of life (QOL). DESIGN In this cross sectional study of baseline data from a nationwide investigation of older patients and their caregivers, patients completed a GA that included validated tests to evaluate eight domains of health (eg, function, cognition). SETTING Thirty‐one community oncology practices throughout the United States. PARTICIPANTS Enrolled patients were aged 70 and older, had one or more GA domain impaired, and had an incurable solid tumor malignancy or lymphoma. Each could choose one caregiver to enroll. MEASUREMENTS Caregivers completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7, Distress Thermometer, Patient Health Questionnaire‐2 (depression), and Short Form Health Survey‐12 (SF‐12 for QOL). Separate multivariate linear or logistic regression models were used to examine the association of the number and type of patient GA impairments with caregiver outcomes, controlling for patient and caregiver covariates. RESULTS A total of 541 patients were enrolled, 414 with a caregiver. Almost half (43.5%) of the caregivers screened positive for distress, 24.4% for anxiety, and 18.9% for depression. Higher numbers of patient GA domain impairments were associated with caregiver depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.29; P < .001], caregiver physical health on SF‐12 (regression coefficient [β] = −1.24; P < .001), and overall caregiver QOL (β = −1.14; P < .01). Impaired patient function was associated with lower caregiver QOL (β = −4.11; P < .001). Impaired patient nutrition was associated with caregiver depression (aOR = 2.08; P < .01). Lower caregiver age, caregiver comorbidity, and patient distress were also associated with worse caregiver outcomes. CONCLUSION Patient GA impairments were associated with poorer emotional health and lower QOL of caregivers. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:969–977, 2019.

12009 Background: GA evaluates aging-related domains (e.g., function) known to be associated with cancer treatment toxicity. In this CRCT, we evaluated if providing a GA summary with management recommendations to oncologists can reduce toxicity in older patients (pts) with advanced cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or other agents with a high reported prevalence of grade 3-5 toxicity. Methods: Pts aged > 70 with incurable solid tumors or lymphoma and > 1 impaired GA domain starting a new treatment regimen were enrolled. Community oncology practices were randomized to intervention (oncologists received GA summary/recommendations for impairments) or usual care (none given). The primary outcome was proportion of pts who experienced any grade 3-5 toxicity (CTCAE v.4) within 3 months. Practice staff prospectively captured toxicities; blinded oncology clinicians reviewed medical records to verify. Secondary outcomes included 6 month overall survival (OS) and treatment intensity (standard vs reduced). Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear mixed/Cox models with Arm as a fixed effect, controlling for practice. Results: From 2013-19, 718 pts were enrolled from 41 practices. Age (mean 77 yrs), sex (43% women), number of impaired GA domains (median 4/8), and treatment type (chemotherapy 88%) were not different by Arm. More pts in intervention were Black (12% vs 3%, p<0.01), had GI cancer (38% vs 31%, p<0.01), and had prior chemotherapy (31% vs 23%, p=0.02). Pts in intervention experienced a lower proportion of grade 3-5 toxicity (175/349; 50%) than pts in usual care (262/369; 71%). The relative risk (RR: intervention vs usual care) of grade 3-5 toxicity was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.87; p=0.0002); the difference was mostly driven by non-heme toxicities (RR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.53-1.0, p<0.05). OS was not significantly different (71% vs 74%, p=0.3). More pts in intervention received reduced intensity treatment at cycle 1 (49% vs 35%, RR 0.81, p=0.01). Dose modifications due to toxicity were lower in intervention (42% vs 58%, p<0.0001), but results were not significant after controlling for practice (RR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.67-1.08, p=0.2). Conclusions: Providing GA information to oncologists reduces the proportion of older pts who experience grade 3-5 toxicity from high-risk palliative cancer treatment, without compromising OS. Reduced treatment intensity at cycle 1 may explain these results. Funding: R01CA177592, U01CA233167, UG1CA189961. Clinical trial information: NCT02054741 .

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 two multi-site geriatric oncology trials. Participants shared their beliefs about and confidence with 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 three 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 and vignette-patient characteristics with treatment decisions. Results Oncologist response rate was 61% (n=305/498). The majority of oncologists agreed that “the care of older adults with cancer needs to be improved” (89%) and that “geriatrics training is essential” (72%). However, less than 25% were “very confident” in recognizing dementia or conducting a fall risk or functional assessment, and only 23% reported using the geriatric assessment (GA) in clinic. Each randomly varied patient characteristic was independently associated with the decision to treat: younger age (adjusted OR: 5.01; 95% CI: 2.73–9.20), normal cognition (5.42; 3.01–9.76), and being functionally intact (3.85; 2.12–7.00). Accounting for all vignettes across all scenarios, 161 (52%) said they would offer chemotherapy. All variables were independently associated with prescribing single-agent over combination chemotherapy (older age: 3.22; 1.43–7.25; impaired cognition: 3.13, 1.36–7.20; impaired function: 2.48; 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.