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: Falls in older adults with cancer are common, yet factors associated with fall-risk are not well-defined and may differ from the general geriatric population. This study aims to develop and validate a model of factors associated with prior falls among older adults with cancer.Methods: In this cross-sectional secondary analysis, two cohorts of patients aged ≥ 65 with cancer were examined to develop and validate a model of factors associated with falls in the prior 6 months. Potential independent variables, including demographic and laboratory data and a geriatric assessment (encompassing comorbidities, functional status, physical performance, medications, and psychosocial status), were identified. A multivariate model was developed in the derivation cohort using an exhaustive modeling approach. The model selected for validation offered a low Akaike Information Criteria value and included dichotomized variables for ease of clinical use. This model was then applied in the validation cohort.Results: The development cohort (N = 498) had a mean age of 73 (range 65-91). Nearly one-fifth (18.2%) reported a fall in the prior 6 months. The selected model comprised nine variables involving functional status, objective physical performance, depression, medications, and renal function. The AUC of the model was 0.72 (95% confidence intervals 0.65-0.78). In the validation cohort (N = 250), the prevalence of prior falls was 23.6%. The AUC of the model in the validation cohort was 0.62 (95% confidence intervals 0.51-0.71).Conclusion: In this study, we developed and validated a model of factors associated with prior falls in older adults with cancer. Future study is needed to examine the utility of such a model in prospectively predicting incident falls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which investigates the trends in the survival of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients and determines how these trends differ among racial, socioeconomic, and ethnic groups. The study used HCC patients' data in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The result shows that the survival of HCC patients improves for all ethnic, racial and income groups, but the black race has the poorest survival while Asian has the best chances of survival.

Simple Summary: Conducting a geriatric assessment represents the standard of care for the management of older adults with cancer. However, most studies of the geriatric assessment in oncology have included non-Hispanic white populations with high educational levels living in developed countries. In this study, we assessed the feasibility, reliability, and validity of two methods of administration (electronic touchscreen tablet and paper/pencil) of the Spanish language version of a self-administered geriatric assessment among older women with breast cancer in the United States. Our results show that implementing a self-administered geriatric assessment using either an electronic tablet or paper/pencil is feasible, reliable, and valid in Spanish-speaking older adults. However, in order to complete the geriatric assessment, participants with lower educational levels were more likely to need help and took significantly longer to do so. This study highlights the importance of tailoring assessments and questionnaires to the cultural, social, and educational level of older adults with cancer. We evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a Spanish-language self-administered geriatric assessment (GA) in older (age ≥ 65) Spanish-speaking women with breast cancer in the United States. Eligible participants (n = 181) were recruited and randomized. Feasibility was defined as the participant's unassisted GA completion rate, completion time, and perception on ease of completion. Reliability and validity were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficients. Two-sided p < 0.05 was considered significant. Ninety-eight percent of participants (n = 177) completed the GA at least once. Median age was 70 years (range: 65–95) and 55% had ≤8th grade education. Forty-one percent (n = 73) were unable to complete the GA unassisted, median completion time was 28 min (range 8–90), and 77% (n = 136) rated the GA as "easy"/"very easy". Patients with ≤8th grade education took longer to complete the GA (30 vs. 25 min, p = 0.0036) and needed more assistance (59% vs. 19%, p < 0.001) than those with ≥9th grade education. Test–retest reliability was high (≥0.82) for all domains except social activity (0.73). Validity among similar scales was found. The self-administered GA is a feasible, reliable, and valid tool for Spanish-speaking older women with breast cancer. Tailoring GA tools to the patients' educational level is important when implementing tools in multicultural environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]