Search

Background: Soft tissue myoepithelial carcinomas (STMC) are a rare, malignant subgroup of myoepithelial tumors that arise typically in glandular or ductal tissues, but also in the bone and soft and cutaneous tissues. Due to its rarity, there is no consensus regarding the treatment of STMC, including chemotherapy or other systemic agents for metastatic STMC. Case Report: A chemotherapy- and regorafenibrefractory STMC, harboring an AGK-BRAF fusion, was successfully treated using MEK-inhibition with cobimetinib in monotherapy. MEK-inhibition with cobimetinib effectively silenced paradoxical MAP kinase/ERK-signaling pathway activation after regorafenib monotherapy, and resulted in a significant and durable clinical response. Conclusion: This effect of MEK-inhibition in STMC harboring an AGK-BRAF fusion has not been previously reported and contributes to the existing, yet limited, knowledge on the treatment of BRAF fusion-driven tumors. Also, our case highlights the importance of next generation sequencing in driving further rational therapeutic choices to provide disease control and palliation.

Background Technology-based interventions are increasingly being introduced in routine clinical cancer care. There is a need for reliable systems to monitor treatment-related toxicity in a standardized manner. Such electronic tools bridge the gap in providing quality home-based monitoring. Methods From July 2017 to December 2017, we performed a multicentered, non-randomized prospective cohort analysis with patients who were receiving routine chemotherapy for various solid tumors, using a web-based patient-reported toxicity registration, management, and intervention system called AMTRA (ambulatory Monitoring of cancer Therapy using an interactive Application) linked to the homecare nursing organization Remedus (R). Twelve common toxicities plus pain and two biometrics could be registered daily or more frequently as required. These were processed centrally to generate tailored advice for lesser symptoms or a phone call from a dedicated nurse in case of severe or prolonged toxicity. A compliance tool to monitor oral therapies was incorporated in the system. Results One hundred sixty-eight patients (92%) were enrolled, with 31,514 registrations analyzed. One hundred eight patients reported severe toxicity (> 1461 registrations), resulting in 102 clinical interventions ranging from self-management advice, supplemental consultations to hospitalizations. Compliance to oral chemotherapy was high using AMTRA with a median of 98.7% (95 confidence interval (CI) [93.5-100.0%]). Seventy-nine percent of patients stated that the availability of AMTRA self-reports was useful in communication with the care provider, while 75% felt more in control while managing their treatment. Conclusions The application of an interactive PRO-system in routine symptom management of cancer patients allowed standardized documentation of toxicities and recorded a high compliance with oral treatment. It allows for rapid interaction for toxicities and cancer-related symptoms experienced at home.

Soft tissue myoepithelial carcinomas (STMC) are a rare, malignant subgroup of myoepithelial tumors that arise typically in glandular or ductal tissues, but also in the bone and soft and cutaneous tissues. Due to its rarity, there is no consensus regarding the treatment of STMC, including chemotherapy or other systemic agents for metastatic STMC.A chemotherapy- and regorafenib-refractory STMC, harboring an AGK-BRAF fusion, was successfully treated using MEK-inhibition with cobimetinib in monotherapy. MEK-inhibition with cobimetinib effectively silenced paradoxical MAP kinase/ERK-signaling pathway activation after regorafenib monotherapy, and resulted in a significant and durable clinical response.This effect of MEK-inhibition in STMC harboring an AGK-BRAF fusion has not been previously reported and contributes to the existing, yet limited, knowledge on the treatment of BRAF fusion-driven tumors. Also, our case highlights the importance of next generation sequencing in driving further rational therapeutic choices to provide disease control and palliation.

Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has overwhelmed the capacity of healthcare systems worldwide. Cancer patients, in particular, are vulnerable and oncology departments drastically needed to modify their care systems and established new priorities. We evaluated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the activity of a single cancer center. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of (i) volumes of oncological activities (2020 vs 2019), (ii) patients’ perception rate of the preventive measures, (iii) patients’ SARS-CoV-2 infections, clinical signs thereof, and (iv) new diagnoses made during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Results As compared with a similar time frame in 2019, the overall activity in total numbers of outpatient chemotherapy administrations and specialist visits was not statistically different ( P = .961 and P = .252), while inpatient admissions decreased for both medical oncology and thoracic oncology (18% ( P = .0018) and 44% ( P < .0001), respectively). Cancer diagnosis plummeted (−34%), but no stage shift could be demonstrated. Acceptance and adoption of hygienic measures was high, as measured by a targeted questionnaire (>85%). However, only 46.2% of responding patients regarded telemedicine, although widely deployed, as an efficient surrogate to a consultation. Thirty-three patients developed SARS-CoV-2, 27 were hospitalized, and 11 died within this time frame. These infected patients were younger, current smokers, and suffered more comorbidities. Conclusions This retrospective cohort analysis adds to the evidence that continuation of active cancer therapy and specialist visits is feasible and safe with the implementation of telemedicine. These data further confirm the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on cancer care management, cancer diagnosis, and impact of infection on cancer patients.

Introduction/Background* The accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab validated the efficacy of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy for patients with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer; however, the objective response rate (ORR) with pembrolizumab was 14.3% in patients with PD-L1–expressing tumours. Human papillomavirus infection is implicated in >95% of cervical cancers and is linked to upregulation of TGF-β signalling. Bintrafusp alfa is a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the TGF-βRII receptor (a TGF-β ‘trap’) fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking PD-L1. We report pooled safety and efficacy in patients with pretreated, immune checkpoint inhibitor-naive, recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer treated with bintrafusp alfa in phase 1 (INTR@PID 001; NCT02517398) and phase 2 (study 012; NCT03427411) studies. Methodology Patients received bintrafusp alfa 0.3-30 mg/kg (phase 1 dose escalation) or 1200 mg every 2 weeks (phase 1 dose expansion and phase 2) until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Treatment past progression was allowed. Primary endpoints were safety (phase 1 dose escalation) and best overall response per RECIST 1.1 (phase 1 dose expansion and phase 2). Result(s)* As of May 15, 2020 (phase 1) and December 22, 2020 (phase 2), 39 patients had received bintrafusp alfa for a median duration of 2.8 months (range, 0.5-19.3). The median follow-up to data cutoff was 35.0 months and 24.1 months for the phase 1 and phase 2 studies, respectively. All patients had received prior anticancer therapy; 16 (41.0%) had received ≥3 regimens. Confirmed ORR was 28.2% (table 1); responses occurred irrespective of Moore criteria (phase 1), tumour histology, prior bevacizumab treatment, or radiation treatment. Median overall survival was 13.4 months. No new safety signals and no treatment-related deaths were observed; side effects were manageable. Conclusion* Bintrafusp alfa had a manageable safety profile and demonstrated clinical activity in patients with heavily pretreated, immune checkpoint inhibitor-naive recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. © 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting. All rights reserved.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has a far-reaching impact on healthcare. Cancer patients in particular were regarded as vulnerable and oncology departments drastically modified their Care systems and established new priorities. We evaluated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the activity of a single cancer center; and we studied patients’ perspectives of the preventive institutional or governmental safety measures.Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of (i) Volumes of Oncological activities (2020 versus 2019), (ii) patients’ perception rate of the preventive measures, (iii) patients’ SARS-Cov-2 infections, clinical signs thereof and (iv) new diagnoses made during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Results: As compared with a similar timeframe in 2019 the overall activity in total numbers of outpatient chemotherapy administrations and specialist visits, based on weekly average of daily accesses was not statistically different; while inpatient admissions decreased for both medical oncology and thoracic oncology (18% (p=0.0018) and 44% (p85%). However, only 46.2% of responding patients regarded telemedicine, although widely deployed, as an efficient surrogate to a consultation. Thirty-three patients developed SARS-CoV-2, 27 were hospitalized and 11 died within this time frame. These infected patients were younger, current smokers and suffered more comorbidities.Conclusions: This retrospective cohort analysis demonstrates that continuation of active cancer therapy and specialist visits is feasible and safe after implementation of population-wide, institutional and department specific safety measures. Substantial decreases in diagnosis of solid tumors were recorded. To manage the backlog of belated diagnoses, while providing continued state-of-the-art cancer care during this prolonged health crisis, we need policy interventions to adapt the health care system and allow telemedicine to fulfill a more prominent role.

A 34-year-old man presented to the clinician with a persisting cutaneous swelling in the lower back. Diagnosis of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) was made based on histopathologic examination of the resected mass and molecular testing. Further diagnostic workup with computed tomography (CT) showed a mass in the prevascular mediastinum, composed of a soft tissue component, areas of fat density and some small foci of calcification. Location of the mass and typical imaging findings of fat component and calcification were suggestive for a teratoma. Robotic assisted surgery with complete resection of the mediastinal mass was performed. Histopathological examination showed that there was no relationship with the primary tumor and confirmed the diagnosis of a teratoma. Teratomas are to be classified as mature, immature and teratomas with malignant transformation. In this patient, histopathology shows a teratoma with somatic-type malignancy. The patient was treated with adjuvant radiotherapy. Upon progressive disease with lung metastasis, pleural metastasis and lymph node metastasis, palliative chemotherapy was started. Knowledge of classic metastatic patterns is essential in imaging oncologic patient. Since DFSP rarely metastasizes, a metastatic origin of the mediastinal mass would not be likely. In a patient with typical imaging findings of a mature teratoma, associated findings such as adenopathy and pulmonary nodules should alert the radiologist to the possibility of a teratoma with somatic-type malignancy.

Individual patients' survival varies greatly in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Retrospective analysis of 368 patients treated with docetaxel and starting abiraterone acetate revealed 5 adverse prognostic factors: hemoglobin < 12 g/dL, > 10 metastases, ECOG performance status >= 2, radiographic progression, and time since diagnosis < 90 months. A prognostic model stratifies patients into 3 groups with different estimated survival, which can aid in patient counseling.Abiraterone acetate (AA) increases overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel. However, survival time varies substantially between individuals. Our goal was to identify prognostic factors that better estimate OS. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective multicentric analysis of 368 patients with mCRPC starting AA with prednisone after docetaxel. Cox proportional hazards statistics were applied. A multivariate model was constructed based on significant univariate predictors by using a manual stepwise forward and backward selection strategy. Model performance was determined by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: Univariate analysis identified 20 significant OS predictors. A multivariate model was constructed, based on 220 patients, incorporating 5 independent risk factors for decreased OS at the time of AA initiation: hemoglobin 10 metastases (HR 1.80), ECOG performance status >= 2 (HR 1.88), radiographic progression (HR 1.50), and time since diagnosis < 90 months (HR 1.66, all P

5509 Background: The accelerated FDA approval of pembrolizumab validated the efficacy of anti–PD-(L)1 therapy for pts with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer; however, the objective response rate (ORR) with pembrolizumab was 14.3% in pts with PD-L1 expressing tumors. HPV infection is implicated in > 95% of cervical cancers and is linked to upregulation of TGF-β signaling. Bintrafusp alfa is a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the TGF-βRII receptor (a TGF-β “trap”) fused to a human IgG1 mAb blocking PD-L1. We report pooled safety and efficacy in pts with immune checkpoint inhibitor–naive, recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer treated with bintrafusp alfa in phase 1 (INTR@PID 001; NCT02517398) and phase 2 (study 012; NCT03427411) studies. Methods: Pts with pretreated, immune checkpoint inhibitor–naive, recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer received bintrafusp alfa 0.3-30 mg/kg (phase 1 dose escalation) or 1200 mg Q2W (phase 1 expansion/phase 2) until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Treatment past progression was allowed. Primary endpoints were safety for the dose-escalation part of the phase 1 study and best overall response per RECIST 1.1 for the expansion part of phase 1 and phase 2 studies. Secondary endpoints for the expansion part of the phase 1 and 2 studies included safety. Results: As of May 15, 2020 (phase 1) and December 22, 2020 (phase 2), 39 pts had received bintrafusp alfa for a median duration of 2.8 months (range, 0.5-19.3). The median follow-up to data cutoff was 35.0 months and 24.1 months for the phase 1 and phase 2 studies, respectively. All pts had received prior anticancer therapy; 16 pts (41.0%) had received ≥3 prior anticancer regimens. There were 2 complete responses and 9 partial responses (PRs; ORR per RECIST 1.1, 28.2%). Median duration of response was 11.7 months (range, 1.4-41.2), and 5 pts (45.5%) had ongoing responses (duration 1.5-41.2 months). An additional delayed PR was observed (duration 23.7 months). Reponses occurred irrespective of tumor histology or prior bevacizumab or radiation treatment. Median overall survival (mOS) was 13.4 months (95% CI, 5.5 to not reached); 24-month OS rate was 33.2%. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 33 pts (84.6%). Grade 3 TRAEs occurred in 8 pts (20.5%; anemia, colitis, gastroparesis, upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, keratoacanthoma, cystitis noninfective, hematuria, pneumonitis, rash macular [n = 1 each]); 1 patient (2.6%) had a grade 4 TRAE (asymptomatic hypokalemia related to the above grade 3 gastroparesis). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: Bintrafusp alfa had a manageable safety profile and demonstrated clinical activity in pts with heavily pretreated, immune checkpoint inhibitor–naive recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT02517398 , NCT03427411.

In the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, chemotherapy is used as a backbone to which an angiogenesis inhibitor such as bevacizumab (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]) or a monoclonal antibody to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) such as cetuximab or panitumumab is added. In this article, we seek answers to the question: “FIRE-3 and C80405: is there a best choice for initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer?” In the absence of clear and univocal evidence that EGFR inhibitors should be used in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic RAS wild-type colorectal cancer, the physician and patient still have the choice between bevacizumab or an EGFR inhibitor as addition to the chemotherapy (FOLFIRI or FOLFOX) in this setting. This choice will be influenced by the different toxicity profiles of bevacizumab and cetuximab or panitumumab and will therefore depend on existing comorbidities of the patient and patient/physician preferences. The higher response rate of the combination of chemotherapy with cetuximab could make this treatment more interesting as induction therapy.

142 Background: The purpose of this non-randomized prospective cohort analysis was to implement and validate a tailored symptom management and intervention system, which integrates tailored education and advice for improving symptom self-management among cancer patients. We hypothesized that improved symptom self-management allows for early symptom control, better compliance, better dose intensity and reduce the necessity for extra visits / ER-visits. Methods: Patients initiating systemic therapy for malignant disease used a pre-programmed device in order to register compliance (in case of oral treatment), 12 clinical symptoms and 2 biometrics (weight and temperature). These real time data were collected onto a central platform, stratified according to different grades based on the PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE ); and processed by an algorithm to render personalized advise when necessary. In case of severe (≥ Gr III) toxicity a dedicated nurse would intervene. Our primary outcome was symptom burden assessed via patient report tool. Secondary outcomes included relative dose intensity. Results: 168 Cancer patients were recruited from June 1st 2017 to December 31st 2017 across 4 sites, 76 men and 92 women. The median age 63 years (range 23-88 yr). 8275 Registrations were analyzed, pain was most frequently scored and loss of appetite was the most frequent gr III PROM. 108 patients scored toxicities (1413) requiring follow up or intervention by a dedicated nurse; resulting in 99 extra interventions: 34 extra consultations and 15 hospitalizations. Supportive treatment was adapted in 2, supportive advice given in 40 and in 12 instances no registration of the action was retrieved. Conclusions: The ambulatory follow up of patients with anti-cancer treatment appears feasible and reliable. Further effort to provide at home symptom management is warranted and requires both a logistic framework, as well as continuous education of motivated caregivers and patients. Evaluation on dose intensity and compliance of treatment will follow.

Docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin have proven activity in a broad range of solid tumours and interfere with different phases of the cell cycle. We performed a phase I study with the aim to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin in patients with solid tumours and to define the safety, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the recommended dose and administration schedule of docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin for further phase II testing. Docetaxel was given by 1-h infusion on day 1, followed by ifosfamide 1000 mg/m(2)/day as a continuous infusion for 5 days. Mesna was added at the same doses to the same infusion bag and was continued for 12 h after the end of ifosfamide. Cisplatin was administered as a 24-h infusion concomitantly with ifosfamide, but in separate infusion bags, either on day 5 (schedule A) or on day 1 (schedule B). Escalation steps were planned only for docetaxel (60, 75, 85 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (50, 75, 100 mg/m(2)). No intrapatient dose escalation was permitted. Prophylactic ciprofloxacin was used after a protocol amendment was implemented. No prophylactic haematopoietic growth factors were used. Cycles of docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin were given at 3-week intervals. Toxicity was scored according to National Cancer Institute Canada-Common Toxicity Criteria 2. The MTD was defined as the dose at which a DLT was observed in fewer than two of six patients during the first treatment cycle. In total, 85 patients received 309 cycles. Only three escalation steps could be explored and DLTs were observed at each dose level. In total, 32 patients and 49 cycles showed DLTs. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 20 patients (24%). Only two DLTs were nonhaematological (one cerebral infarction and one encephalopathy grade 4). Neutropenia grade 4 lasted for greater than 7 days and/or thrombocytopenia grade 4 was dose limiting in 10 patients. Febrile neutropenia occurred in five of 41 patients (12%) who received prophylactic ciprofloxacin and in 15 of 44 patients (34%) who did not. MTD was reached at level 3 (docetaxel, 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin, 75 mg/m(2)). With a lower dose of docetaxel (60 mg/m(2)) both schedules A and B were feasible, although, overall, schedule A seemed to be better tolerated. On the basis of this phase I study, the recommended docetaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin regimen is docetaxel (60 mg/m(2)) on day 1, ifosfamide (1000 mg/m(2)/day) on days 1-5 and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) given on day 5. It is associated with substantial haematological toxicity, but this is feasible provided prophylactic antibiotics are used.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed-and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. Results: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. Conclusion: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.

The present phase I trial was planned to assess the maximum tolerated dose, the dose-limiting toxicity and the pharmacokinetics of bendamustine hydrochloride in a once every 3 weeks schedule, and to recommend a safe dose for future phase II studies. Included were patients with refractory solid tumors. Bendamustine hydrochloride was administered as a short intravenous infusion over 30 min. The starting dose was defined at 160 mg/m2 and dose escalation used increments of 20 mg/m2. Plasma and urine samples were analyzed using validated high-pressure liquid chromatography/fluorescence assays. Twenty-six patients (14 men, 12 women) were enrolled for the study. At 280 mg/m2, one out of four patients developed a thrombocytopenia grade 4, two experienced grade 3 fatigue and three experienced cardiac toxicity (grade 2). The latter toxicity was considered dose limiting also and further dose escalation was stopped. Plasma pharmacokinetics parameters of bendamustine hydrochloride and its metabolites were assessed in 15 patients. Mean pharmacokinetic parameters of bendamustine hydrochloride were a tmax of 32.3 min, a t1/2 of 37.8 min, a volume of distribution of 14.2 l/m and a clearance of 287.8 ml/min/m2. No dose dependency of bendamustine hydrochloride was observed within the used dose range. The metabolites comprised only 23% of the overall area under the concentration-time curve. The maximum tolerated dose of bendamustine hydrochloride on day 1 q 3 weeks is 280 mg/m2. Fatigue and cardiac toxicity were dose limiting. The plasma pharmacokinetics data of bendamustine and its metabolites were in accordance with previous reports. The recommended dose for future trials is 260 mg/m2 every 3 weeks.

e18208 Background: Health Information Technology (HIT) is increasingly integrated in clinical cancer care. Simultaneous routine assessment of patient reported outcomes (PROs) reliably improve symptom management, patient-provider communication and ultimately survival. Methods: his pilot study is a single center experience with the development and validation of an I-PRO tool (AMOCT). After obtaining informed consent, outpatients, using oral anticancer treatment, recorded their medication intake and 17 PRO measures (PROM) using this I-PRO tool. The device allowed real time data collection via a central platform. The registered data were processed by an algorithm, which stratifies the data into different grades according to international standards of care (CTCAE v4.0). In response to registration of data, patients received either automated symptom management suggestions or were referred to their caregivers. Patient clinical and demographic information is collected from medical records and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 63 Patients were included, 51% male, mean age 61.5 (range 28-83). 41% Of patients used capecitabine, 24% regorafenib, 16% TAS 102, 5% pazopanib and 5% sunitinib. Of the 1873 PROM-scores, 308 scores needed nurses’ attention, ultimately leading to dose reductions in 7 patients (12%). Most often due to weight loss, skin toxicity and asthenia. 41 Patients stopped registration: 51% because treatment ended, 27 % died, 10% dropped out, 5% progressed, 5% were lost to follow up and 2% never started. This tool was well adopted and demonstrated treatment compliance in > 85% patients. Conclusions: This study confirms the feasibility of the program, in an outpatient setting. This I-PRO tool provides a means to register compliance and toxicity of treatment. The compliance to the I-PRO tool will be confirmed, with further development of this program in a multicenter, randomized design. Evaluation of quality of life, PROM’s and further exploration of the relationship between optimal pharmacovigilance and improvement of patient’s outcome will ensue.

Tuberculosis (TB) of the breast is a rare entity, and can be confused with many other breast disorders, like mamma carcinoma or inflammatory breast cancer. When finding granulomatous mastitis (GM) on histology, it is important to make a differential diagnosis and seek actively for clues on the presence of tuberculosis, sarcoidosis, Wegener's granulomatosis, or idiopathic granulomatous mastitis, since treatment strategies differ and maltreatment has major implications on morbidity and mortality. An extensive clinical evaluation, laboratory work up, and imaging will lead in most cases to the right diagnosis. Anti-tuberculous therapy is the core treatment for breast TB, and surgery is indicated for extensive or persistent residual disease. Here we present a case of tuberculous mastitis and a review of literature on GM.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. Materials and Methods: A survey was carried out in 9 Belgian hospitals, which participated in a national GA implementation project focusing on older patients with cancer. A newly developed questionnaire was completed by their treating physicians. Data collection comprised of reviewing hospital data, general respondent data, and treating physicians' general experiences and expectations regarding GA. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Eighty-two physicians from 9 hospitals participated. The GA team composition can vary substantially, with a nurse as core member. Ideally, all older patients with cancer in whom a treatment decision is necessary, should benefit from the GA. Nearly all GA domains are reported as very important. Availability of GA results can be improved. Treating physicians want geriatricians to coordinate geriatric recommendations related to the identified GA problems, and expect from trained healthcare workers (THCWs) to collect GA data, to report GA results, and to follow-up the implementation of geriatric recommendations. Conclusion: This study identifies relevant information for improving the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer in Belgium and reveals priorities for a THCW from the treating physician's point of view. To increase the effectiveness of GA, further efforts are needed to improve the implementation of geriatric recommendations.