Performance of the Vulnerable Elders Survey 13 screening tool in identifying cancer treatment modification after geriatric assessment in pre-treatment patients: A retrospective analysis

Assessing Frailty in Gastrointestinal Cancer: Two Diseases in One?

PURPOSEOF REVIEW

This review examines the challenges of treating gastrointestinal cancer in the aging population, focusing on the importance of frailty assessment. Emphasized are the rise in gastrointestinal cancer incidence in older adults, advances in frailty assessments for patients with gastrointestinal cancer, the development of novel frailty markers, and a summary of recent trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence suggests that the use of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) to identify frail older adults and individualize cancer care leads to lower toxicity and improved quality of life outcomes. However, the adoption of a full CGA prior to chemotherapy initiation in older cancer patients remains low. Recently, new frailty screening tools have emerged, including assessments designed to specifically predict chemotherapy-related adverse events. Additionally, frailty biomarkers have been developed, such as blood tests like IL-6 and performance tracking through physical activity monitors. The relevance of nutrition and muscle mass is discussed. Highlights from recent trials suggest the feasibility of successfully identifying patients most at risk of serious adverse events. There have been promising developments in identifying novel frailty markers and methods to screen for frailty in the older adult population. Further prospective trials that focus on and address the needs of the geriatric population for early identification of frailty in cancer care, facilitating a more tailored treatment approach. Practicing oncologists should select a frailty assessment to implement into their routine practice and adjust treatment accordingly.

Defining an Abnormal Geriatric Assessment: Which Deficits Matter Most?

At present, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an abnormal geriatric assessment (GA) in geriatric oncology. Various threshold numbers of abnormal GA domains are often used, but how well these are associated with treatment plan modification (TPM) and whether specific GA domains are more important in this context remains uncertain. A retrospective review of the geriatric oncology clinic database at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, including new patients seen for treatment decision making from May 2015 to June 2022, was conducted. Logistic regression modelling was performed to determine the association between various predictor variables (including the GA domains and numerical thresholds) and TPM. The study cohort (n = 736) had a mean age of 80.7 years, 46.1% was female, and 78.3% had a VES-13 score indicating vulnerability (≥3). In the univariable analysis, the best-performing threshold number of abnormal domains based on area under the curve (AUC) was 4 (AUC 0.628). The best-performing multivariable model (AUC 0.704) included cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. In comparison, the multivariable model with the sole addition of the threshold of 4 had an AUC of 0.689. Overall, an abnormal GA may be best defined as one with abnormalities in the domains of cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. The optimal numerical threshold to predict TPM is 4.

Validity of a self-administered G8 screening test for older patients with cancer

INTRODUCTION

The Geriatric 8 (G8) is a brief cancer-specific tool which screens for patients who require a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). The G8 test assesses patients on eight domains such as mobility, polypharmacy, age, and self-rated health. However, the current G8 requires a healthcare professional (nurse or physician) present to conduct the test, which limits its usefulness. The Self-G8 questionnaire (S-G8) is an adaptation of the original G8 test, assessing all the same domains, with questions modified to be appropriate for patients to self-complete. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of S-G8 compared to the G8 and CGA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The initial S-G8 was designed by our team through review of the literature and questionnaire design principles, and was optimized through feedback from patients over the age of 70. The questionnaire subsequently underwent further refinement after undergoing pilot testing (N = 14). The diagnostic accuracy of the final iteration of the S-G8 was evaluated along with the standard G8 in a prospective cohort study (N = 52) in an academic geriatric oncology clinic at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Psychometric characteristics were evaluated including internal consistency, sensitivity, and specificity compared to the G8 and to the CGA.

RESULTS

There was strong correlation between the G8 and S-G8 scores, with a Spearman correlation co-efficient of 0.76 (p < 0.001). Internal consistency was acceptable at 0.60. The frequency of abnormality (<14 score) for the G8 and S-G8 was 82.7% and 61.5%, respectively. The mean score for the original G8 and S-G8 was 11.9 and 13.5, respectively. The cut-off of 14 for the S-G8 yielded the best combination of sensitivity of 0.70 ± 0.07 and specificity of 0.78 ± 0.14 when compared to the G8. When compared to two or more abnormal domains on the CGA, the S-G8 performed at least as well as the G8 with a sensitivity of 0.77, specificity of 0.85, and a Youden's index of 0.62.

DISCUSSION

The S-G8 questionnaire appears to be an acceptable alternative to the original G8 in identifying older adults with cancer who will benefit from a CGA. Large scale testing is warranted.

NAVIGATE: improving survival in vulnerable patients with lung cancer through nurse navigation, symptom monitoring and exercise - study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Low socioeconomic position (SEP) has been shown to be strongly associated with impaired lung cancer survival. Barriers related to receiving recommended treatment among patients with lung cancer with low SEP may include adverse health behaviour and limited physical and psychosocial resources influencing the ability to react on high-risk symptoms and to navigate the healthcare system. To address the underlying factors that drive both decisions of treatment, adherence to treatment and follow-up in vulnerable patients with lung cancer, we developed the Navigate intervention. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to investigate the effect of the intervention on survival (primary outcome), lung cancer treatment adherence, health-related quality of life and other psychosocial outcomes as well as health costs and process evaluation (secondary outcomes) in a study population of vulnerable patients with lung cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This two-armed multicentre randomised trial will recruit patients from five lung cancer clinics in Denmark identified as vulnerable according to a screening instrument with nine clinical and patient-reported vulnerability criteria developed for the study. We will enrol 518 vulnerable patients >18 years old diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer at all stages with a performance status <2. Participants will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment and intervention or standard treatment alone. The Navigate intervention is based on principles from motivational interviewing and includes three components of nurse navigation, systematic monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and physical exercise in a person-centred delivery model. Data will be collected at baseline and 3, 6, 12 months after randomisation using questionnaires, clinical data and physical function tests.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics Committee, Region Zealand (SJ-884/EMN-2020-37380) and the Data Protection Agency in Region Zealand (REG-080-2021) approved the trial. Participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05053997.

International Survey on Frailty Assessment in Patients with Cancer

Background

Frailty negatively affects the outcomes of patients with cancer, and its assessment might vary widely in the real world. The objective of this study was to explore awareness and use of frailty screening tools among the ONCOassist healthcare professionals (HCPs) users.

Materials and Methods

We sent 2 emails with a cross-sectional 15-item survey in a 3-week interval between April and May 2021. Differences in the awareness and use of tools according to respondents’ continents, country income, and job types were investigated.

Results

Seven hundred thirty-seven HCPs from 91 countries (81% physicians, 13% nurses, and 5% other HCPs) completed the survey. Three hundred and eighty-five (52%) reported assessing all or the majority of their patients; 518 (70%) at baseline and before starting a new treatment. Three hundred and four (43%) HCPs were aware of performance status (PS) scores only, 309 (42%) age/frailty/comorbidity (AFC) screening, and 102 (14%) chemotoxicity predictive tools. Five hundred and thirty-seven (73%) reported using tools; 423 (57%) just PS, 237 (32%) AFC, and 60 (8%) chemotoxicity ones. Reasons for tools non-use (485 responders) were awareness (70%), time constraints (28%), and uselessness (2%). There were significant differences in awareness and use of screening tools among different continents, country income, job types, and medical specialties (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Conclusion

Among selected oncology HCPs, there is still a worldwide lack of knowledge and usage of frailty screening tools, which may differ according to their geography, country income, and education. Targeted initiatives to raise awareness and education are needed to implement frailty assessment in managing patients with cancer.

Interdisciplinary Protocol for Surgery in Older Persons: Development and Implementation

As the population ages, more older adults will undergo surgical procedures, and common physiologic changes can raise the risk for surgical complications while increasing morbidity and mortality. In conjunction with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, we piloted a comprehensive and interdisciplinary assessment and intervention protocol for perioperative care for patients aged ≥75 years undergoing elective general, gynecology-oncologic, and orthopedic surgery. The intervention included screening tools for cognitive, functional, and nutritional deficits, a Geriatric Nurse Champion on each inpatient surgical unit, and an interdisciplinary Geriatric Surgery Quality Committee. Our intervention group was compared to surgical patients during the same time period 1 year prior to the intervention, and the groups were well matched in demographics and comorbidities. The intervention group had significantly higher rates of advance care plan documentation in analysis of all patients (P < .001) and in subgroup analysis of those 85 and older (P = .006). The preintervention group had less postoperative delirium compared to the postintervention group but it was not significant and there was no difference in length of stay between groups. Various explanations for the minimal impact of the protocol exist: small sample size, presence of other hospital initiatives to reduce pressure ulcer and delirium, and clinician's awareness of project planning that led to incorporating ideas prior to official implementation. Future research implementing this protocol in naïve and/or underperforming institutions may demonstrate a greater effect. Larger sample size as well as implementation in other surgical fields may reveal a significant impact. However, if additional study does not reveal a meaningful impact of a comprehensive geriatric assessment for surgical patients, then consideration must be made regarding unrecognized factors in surgical care for older adults or perhaps that factors cannot be mitigated in older adults because they are intrinsically a higher surgical risk.

Quality of care of consultations from the geriatric oncology clinic: "Are we addressing the needs of patients?"

INTRODUCTION

A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is recommended for older adults with cancer in the pre-treatment setting to optimize care. A CGA systematically evaluates multiple domains to develop a holistic view of the patient's health and facilitate timely interventions to ameliorate patient outcomes. For a CGA to be most effective, optimization of each abnormal domain should occur. However, there is limited literature exploring this issue.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consultations of patients seen in a Geriatric Oncology clinic from June 2015 to June 2018 were reviewed. The percentage of "no recommendations made" in the consultation letter following the identification of impairment in each of eight geriatric domains was calculated. Trends over time were examined by stratifying the data into three periods ("Year 1", "Year 2", and "Year 3") and conducting a logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 365 consultation notes were reviewed. The patients were predominately older (mean age 79.9 years), male (66.9%), with genitourinary (38.6%) or gastrointestinal (23.3%) cancers. The most common stage was metastatic (40.6%). The most common treatment intent and modality were palliative (50.4%) and hormonal (50.9%), respectively. The geriatric domains that had the greatest frequency of impairments were medication optimization (76.2%), functional status (68.8%), and falls risk (64.9%). The domains that had the highest frequency of "no recommendations made" following identification of impairment were nutrition (39.8%), social support (39.5%), and mood (26.4%). The prevalence of "no recommendations made" decreased over time in social support (54.6% in Year 1 to 27.8% in Year 3, p = 0.043) and possibly nutrition (53.1% in Year 1 to 34.3% in Year 3, p = 0.088) but not for mood (p = 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Nutrition, social supports and mood were the CGA domains with the highest proportion of "no recommendations made" following an identification of impairment. This is the first quality assurance study to identify social supports, mood, and nutrition domains as less frequently addressed following an identification of an impairment amongst older patients with cancer. Subsequent prospective research is required to understand reasons for these observations and identification of barriers to address these geriatric domains amongst older adults with cancer.

The VES-13 and G-8 tools as predictors of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients: A single-center study

Background

Adjuvant hormone treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer is mainly based on aromatase inhibitors. Adverse events associated with such class of drugs are particularly severe in elderly patients. Therefore, we investigated the possibility of ab initio predict which elderly patients could encounter toxicity.

Methods

In light of national and international oncological guidelines recommending the use of screening tests for multidimensional geriatric assessment in elderly patients aged ≥70 years and eligible for active cancer treatment, we assessed whether the Vulnerable Elder Survey (VES)-13 and the Geriatric (G)-8 could be predictors of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors. Seventy-seven consecutive patients aged ≥70 diagnosed with non-metastatic hormone-responsive breast cancer and therefore eligible for adjuvant hormone therapy with aromatase inhibitors, were screened with the VES-13 and the G-8, and underwent a six-monthly clinical and instrumental follow-up in our medical oncology unit, from September 2016 to March 2019 (30 months). Said patients were identified as vulnerable (VES-13 score ≥3 or G-8 score ≤14) and fit (VES-13 score <3 or G-8 score >14). The likelihood of experiencing toxicity is greater among vulnerable patients.

Results

The correlation between the VES-13 or the G-8 tools and the presence of adverse events is equal to 85.7% (p = 0.03). The VES-13 demonstrated 76.9% sensitivity, 90.2% specificity, 80.0% positive predictive value, 88.5% negative predictive value. The G-8 demonstrated 79.2% sensitivity, 88.7% specificity, 76% positive predictive value, 90.4% negative predictive value.

Conclusion

The VES-13 and the G-8 tools could be valuable predictors of the onset of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients aged ≥70.

Use of the Geriatric-8 screening tool to predict prognosis and complications in older adults with head and neck cancer: A prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVES

To clarify the usefulness of geriatric assessment screening tools for predicting prognosis and complications in older adults with head and neck cancer (HNC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The geriatric-8 (G8) screening tool was administered to 78 older adults with HNC at their first visit to the hospital before any treatments. The ability of the G8 to predict survival was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and determining the cut-off value using Youden's Index. The G8 and other factors related to prognosis (age, performance status (PS), Charlson comorbidity index, number of oral medicines (polypharmacy), the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score for biological nutrition status, and treatment intent (curative or palliative)) were validated by Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. The survival analysis was validated in a propensity score-weighting cohort to correct for confounding factors. Correlations between these factors and complications were examined using Fishers exact test.

RESULTS

The G8 cut-off value for overall survival was 10.5 (area under the curve (AUC) 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.82). In the propensity score-weighted cohort, on Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, the hazard ratio of an abnormal G8 (<11) was 3.70 [1.59-8.61 (p = 0.002)], and the hazard ratio of PS-abnormal (≥2) was 0.85 [0.09-7.60 (p = 0.88)]. Thirty-day mortality and all-complication rates were significantly higher in the G8-abnormal group. Neither major complications nor transfer to other institutions was correlated with an abnormal G8.

CONCLUSION

The G8 was a strong prognostic factor and a possible predictor of complications in older adults with HNC.

Role of the vulnerable elders survey-13 screening tool in predicting treatment plan modification for older adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) is commonly used to identify older patients who may benefit from Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) prior to cancer treatment. The optimal cut point of the VES-13 to identify those whose final oncologic treatment plan would change after CGA is unclear. We hypothesized that patients with high positive VES-13 scores (7-10)have a higher likelihood of a change in treatment compared to low positive scores (3-6).

METHODS

Retrospective review of a customized database of all patients seen for pre-treatment assessment in an academic geriatric oncology clinic from June 2015 to June 2019. Various VES-13 cut points were analyzed to identify those individuals whose treatment was modified after CGA. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated and subgroups of patients treated locally or systemically were also examined to determine if performance varied by treatment modality.

RESULTS

We included 386 patients with mean age 81, 58% males. Gastrointestinal cancer was the most common site (31%) and 60% were planned to receive curative treatment. The final treatment plan was modified in 59% overall, with 52.7% modified with VES-13 scores 7-10, 50.8% with scores 3-6 and 28.1% with scores <3 (P = 0.002). VES-13 performance in predicting treatment modification was similar for cut points 3 (AUC 0.58), 4 (0.59), 5 (0.59), and 6 (0.59) and in those considering local treatment vs. chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A positive VES-13 score was associated with final oncologic treatment plan modification. A high positive score was not superior to the conventional cut point of ≥3.