Search

Introduction: Older adults with cancer facing competing treatments must prioritize between various outcomes. This study assessed health outcome prioritization among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy. Methods: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer. Patients completed three validated outcome prioritization tools: 1) Health Outcomes Tool: prioritizes outcomes (survival, independence, symptoms) using a visual analog scale; 2) Now vs. Later Tool: rates the importance of quality of life at three times—today versus 1 or 5 years in the future; and 3) Attitude Scale: rates agreement with outcome‐related statements. The authors measured the proportion of patients prioritizing various outcomes and evaluated their characteristics. Results: A total of 219 patients (median [range] age 71 [65–88], 68% with metastatic disease) were included. On the Health Outcomes Tool, 60.7% prioritized survival over other outcomes. Having localized disease was associated with choosing survival as top priority. On the Now vs. Later Tool, 50% gave equal importance to current versus future quality of life. On the Attitude Scale, 53.4% disagreed with the statement "the most important thing to me is living as long as I can, no matter what my quality of life is"; and 82.2% agreed with the statement "it is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible". Conclusion: Although survival was the top priority for most participants, some older individuals with cancer prioritize other outcomes, such as cognition and function. Clinicians should elicit patient‐defined priorities and include them in decision‐making. In this secondary analysis of 219 older participants (median age 71 years) from a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer, 61% prioritized survival over other outcomes such as maintaining their independence or being free from symptoms. Clinicians should elicit patient‐defined priorities and include them in decision‐making when discussing treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Frailty has been suggested as a construct for oncologists to consider in treating older cancer patients. Therefore, the authors assessed the potential of creating a deficit-accumulation frailty index (DAFI) from a largely self-administered comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA).Methods: Five hundred patients aged ≥65 years underwent a CGA before receiving chemotherapy. A DAFI was constructed, resulting in a 51-item scale, and cutoff values were examined for patients in the robust/nonfrail (cutoff value, 0.0 < 0.2), prefrail (cutoff value, 0.2 < 0.35), and frail (cutoff value, ≥ 0.35) groups.Results: Two hundred and fifty patients (50%) were nonfrail, 197 (39%) were prefrail, and 52 (11%) were frail. Older patients (aged ≥ 80 years) and those who had lower education, were living alone, and had higher stage disease were associated with prefrail/frail status. Prefrail/frail patients were more likely to have grade ≥3 toxicity but not to have a dose delay or reduction, and they were more likely to discontinue drug and be hospitalized. The association with grade ≥3 toxicity was attenuated by controlling for a toxicity risk calculator, but the other outcomes were not.Conclusions: A deficit-accumulation frailty index can be constructed from a CGA in older patients with cancer and can indicate the frailty status of the population. The frailty status so determined is associated both with outcomes likely because of chemotherapy toxicity and with those likely because of age-related physiologic and functional deficits and thus can be useful in the overall assessment of the patient. Cancer 2016;122:3865-3872. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rigorous processes ensure quality of research and clinical care at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (NCICCCs). Unmeasurable elements of structure and process of cancer care delivery warrant evaluation. To the authors' knowledge, the impact of NCICCC care on survival and access to NCICCCs for vulnerable subpopulations remain unstudied.Methods: The current study's population-based cohort of 69,579 patients had newly diagnosed adult-onset (aged 22-65 years) cancers reported to the Los Angeles County cancer registry between 1998 and 2008. Geographic information systems were used for geospatial analysis.Results: With regard to overall survival across multiple diagnoses, patients not receiving their first planned treatment at NCICCCs experienced poorer outcomes compared with those treated at NCICCCs; differences persisted on multivariable analyses after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors (hepatobiliary: hazard ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.4-1.7 [P<.001]; lung: HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6 [P<.001]; pancreatic: HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7 [P<.001]; gastric: HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7 [P = .01]; breast: HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5 [P<.001]; and colorectal: HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4 [P = .05]). With regard to barriers to care, multivariable analyses revealed that a lower likelihood of treatment at NCICCCs was associated with race/ethnicity (African-American: OR range across diagnoses: 0.4-0.7 [P<.03]; Hispanic: OR range, 0.5-0.7 [P<.04]); lack of private insurance (public: OR range, 0.6-0.8 [P<.004]; uninsured: OR range, 0.1-0.5 [P<.04]); less than high socioeconomic status (high-middle: OR range, 0.4-0.7 [P<.02]; middle: OR range, 0.3-0.5 [P<.001]; and low: OR range, 0.2-0.6 [P<.01]), and residing >9 miles from the nearest NCICCC (OR range, 0.5-0.7 [P<.02]).Conclusions: Among individuals aged 22 to 65 years residing in Los Angeles County with newly diagnosed adult-onset cancer, those who were treated at NCICCCs experienced superior survival compared with those treated at non-NCICCC facilities. Barriers to care at NCICCCs included race/ethnicity, insurance, socioeconomic status, and distance to an NCICCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]