Search

Background: Automated frailty screening tools like the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) are primarily validated for care consumption outcomes. We assessed the predictive ability of the HFRS regarding care consumption outcomes, frailty domain impairments and mortality among older adults with cancer, using the Geriatric 8 (G8) screening tool as a clinical benchmark., Methods: This retrospective, linkage-based study included patients aged ≥70 years with solid tumor, enrolled in the Elderly Cancer Patients (ELCAPA) multicentre cohort study (2016-2020) and hospitalized in acute care within the Greater Paris University Hospitals. HFRS scores, which encompass hospital-acquired problems and frailty-related syndromes, were calculated using data from the index admission and the preceding 6 months. A multidomain geriatric assessment (GA), including cognition, nutrition, mood, functional status, mobility, comorbidities, polypharmacy, incontinence, and social environment, was conducted at ELCAPA inclusion, with computation of the G8 score. Logistic and Cox regressions measured associations between the G8, HFRS, altered GA domains, length of stay exceeding 10 days, 30-day readmission, and mortality., Results: Among 587 patients included (median age 82 years, metastatic cancer 47.0%), 237 (40.4%) were at increased frailty risk by the HFRS (HFRS>5) and 261 (47.5%) by the G8 (G8≤10). Both HFRS and G8 were significantly associated with cognitive and functional impairments, incontinence, comorbidities, prolonged length of stay, and 30-day mortality. The G8 was associated with polypharmacy, nutritional and mood impairment., Discussion: Although showing significant associations with short-term care consumption, the HFRS could not identify polypharmacy, nutritional, mood and social environment impairments and showed low discriminatory ability across all GA domains., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The benefits of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) are well established for hospital care but less so for primary care. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of two multifaceted interventions based on a CGA adapted for primary care on a composite criterion combining all-cause mortality, emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions, and institutionalisation., Methods: This open-label, pragmatic, three-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial involved 39 general practices in France. It included 634 patients aged 70 years or over with chronic health conditions and/or an unplanned hospital admission in the past 3 months, between 05/2016 and 08/2018. Interventions were in arm 1: a systematic nurse-led CGA; arm 2: a GP-led CGA, at the GP's discretion; arm 3: standard care. The primary composite endpoint was assessed at 12 months. The secondary endpoints included: components of the composite endpoint, health-related quality of life (Duke Health Profile), functional status (Katz Activities of Daily Living Index) and medications (number) at 12 months. Pairwise comparisons between the experimental groups and the control were tested. The main analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, after imputing missing information and adjusting for baseline imbalances by mixed effects regressions., Results: For the primary composite outcome, no statistically significant difference was found between arm 1 and the control (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.81 [95%CI 0.54-1.21], P = 0.31), whereas arm 2 and the control differed significantly (aOR = 0.60 [0.39-0.93], P = 0.022). A statistically lower risk of unplanned hospital admission in arm 2 vs control (aOR = 0.57 [0.36-0.92], P = 0.020)) was observed, while no statistically significant differences were found for the other components and between arm 1 and the control. None of the other secondary endpoints differed between arms., Conclusions: Our study led in community-dwelling older patients with chronic conditions found no significant effect of a CGA adapted for primary care on mortality, functional independence and quality of life, but suggests that a GP-led CGA may reduce the risk of unplanned hospital admission. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating CGA into clinical practice and highlights its potential benefits when applied on a case-by-case basis, guided by the GPs who develop the resulting PCP., Trial Registration: NCT02664454., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Predictors for mortality and toxicity in older patients with cancer are mainly studied in cohorts with various cancers at different stages. This study aims to identify predictive geriatric factors (PGFs) for early death and severe chemotherapy related adverse events (CRAEs) in patients aged ≥70 years with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC)., Material and Methods: This is a secondary analysis of the multicenter, randomized, phase 3 ESOGIA trial that compared, for patients ≥70 years with mNSCLC, a treatment algorithm based on performance status and age to another algorithm based on geriatric assessment. To identify PGFs of three-month mortality and grade 3, 4, or 5 CRAEs, multivariate Cox models and logistic models, adjusted for treatment group and center, and stratified by randomization arm, were constructed., Results: Among 494 included patients, 145 (29.4%) had died at three months and 344 (69.6%) had severe chemotherapy toxicity. For three-month mortality, multivariate analyses retained mobility (Test Get up and Go), instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) dependence and weight loss as PGFs. The combined effect of IADL ≤2/4 and weight loss ≥3 kg was strongly associated with three-month mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 5.71 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.64-12.32]). For chemotherapy toxicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 was independently associated with grade3, 4, or 5 CRAEs (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.94 [1.06-3.56])., Discussion: Mobility, IADL dependence, and weight loss were predictive of three-month mortality in a population aged ≥70 years treated for mNSCLC, while comorbidities were independently associated with severe chemotherapy toxicity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors have no conflicts of interest and disclosures., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Due to the location and toxicity of treatments, head and neck cancer (HNC) has a major impact on quality of life (QoL). Objective: to assess the effects of geriatric-assessment (GA)-driven interventions on QoL over 2 years in older adults with HNC.EGeSOR was a randomized study of HNC patients aged ≥65, receiving a pretreatment GA, a geriatric intervention and follow-up (intervention) or standard of care (control). The primary endpoint was QoL score using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's (EORTC QLQ-C30) and HNC (QLQ-HN35) QoL questionnaires over 24 months.In total, 475 patients were included (median age: 75.3; women: 31%; oral cancer: 44%). QoL scores improved over 24 months with various trajectories, without significant differences between the groups. A total of 74% of patients (interventional group) did not receive the complete intervention. Cancer characteristics, functional status, and risk of frailty were associated with change in the Global Health Status QoL score.There is a need to develop an alternative model of implementation such as patient-centered health-care pathways., Trial Registration: NCT02025062., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To assess the prognostic value of neurocognitive disorder (NCD) for 12 month-overall mortality in patients aged 70 or more with a solid cancer., Design: prospective, observational, multicenter cohort., Setting and Participants: We analyzed data from the ELCAPA longitudinal multicenter observational cohort of patients aged 70 or over, referred for a geriatric assessment (GA) before a new cancer treatment modality between January 31st, 2007, and December 29th, 2017. We defined the baseline NCD in four classes: no NCD, mild NCD, moderate NCD, and major NCD, based on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, memory complaint, and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) score., Statistical Methods: We compared the baseline characteristics of patients according to NCD classes, globally and by pairs (with Bonferroni' correction). Prognosis value of NCD classes were analysed by using univariable and then multivariable 12 month survival analysis with age as time-variable and with and without adjustement for the treatment strategy (curative, palliative or exclusive supportive care)., Results: 2784 patients with solid-cancer were included, with a median [interquartile range] age of 82 [78;86]. 36% of the patients were free of NCD, 34% had a mild NCD, 17% had a moderate NCD, and 13% had a major NCD. We identified the following independent prognostic factors for 12 month-overall mortality: NCD (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for a major NCD = 1.54 [1.19-1.98] (p < 0.001), type of cancer, metastatic status, inpatient consultation, poor general health (assessed as the level of fatigue and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status [ECOG-PS]), greater weight loss, palliative treatment, and exclusive supportive care. Additional adjustment for the treatment strategy did not greatly change the strength of the association of a major NCD with 12 month-overall mortality (HR [95%CI] = 1.78 [1.39-2.29] (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Our results suggest that the presence of a major NCD has direct prognostic value (independently of other geriatric factors, the type of cancer and the treatment strategy) in older patients with a solid cancer., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the ability of eight nutrition-related tools to predict 1-year mortality in older patients with cancer., Design, Setting and Participants: We studied older patients with cancer from the ELCAPA cohort and who had been referred for a geriatric assessment at one of 14 participating geriatric oncology clinics in the greater Paris area of France between 2007 and 2018., Measurements: The studied nutrition-related tools/markers were the body mass index (BMI), weight loss (WL) in the previous 6 months, the Mini Nutritional Assessment, the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), the Prognostic Nutritional Index, the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), the modified GPS, and the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio., Results: A total of 1361 patients (median age: 81; males: 51%; metastatic cancer: 49%) were included in the analysis. Most of the tools showed a progressively increase in the mortality risk as the nutrition-related risk category worsened (overall p-values <0.02 for all) after adjustment for age, outpatient status, functional status, severe comorbidities, cognition, mood, cancer treatment strategy, tumour site, and tumour metastasis. All the models were discriminant, with a C-index ranging from 0.748 (for the BMI) to 0.762 (for the GPS). The concordance probability estimate ranged from 0.764 (WL) to 0.773 (GNRI and GPS))., Conclusion: After adjustment for relevant prognostic factors, all eight nutrition-related tools/markers were independently associated with 1-year mortality in older patients with cancer. Depending on the time or context of the GA, physicians do not always have the time or means to perform and assess all the tools/markers compared here. However, even when some information is missing, each nutritional tool/marker has prognostic value and can be used in the evaluation., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest PS, CB and EP have no conflicts of interest to declare.

We aimed to determine whether serum leptin levels are predictive of the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in hospitalized older patients. In a prospective cohort, 232 patients had available data for leptin and were monitored for HAIs for 3 months. Admission data included comorbidities, invasive procedures, the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), BMI, leptin, albumin and C-reactive protein levels, and CD4 and CD8 T-cell counts. Multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to identify predictors of HAIs. Of the 232 patients (median age: 84.8; females: 72.4%), 89 (38.4%) experienced HAIs. The leptin level was associated with the BMI ( p < 0.0001) and MNA ( p < 0.0001) categories. Women who experienced HAIs had significantly lower leptin levels than those who did not (5.9 μg/L (2.6-17.7) and 11.8 (4.6-26.3), respectively; p = 0.01; odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval): 0.67 (0.49-0.90)); no such association was observed for men. In a multivariate analysis of the women, a lower leptin level was significantly associated with HAIs (OR = 0.70 (0.49-0.97)), independently of comorbidities, invasive medical procedures, and immune status. However, leptin was not significantly associated with HAIs after adjustments for malnutrition ( p = 0.26) or albuminemia ( p = 0.15)-suggesting that in older women, the association between serum leptin levels and subsequent HAIs is mediated by nutritional status.

Background: There is limited information describing the characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized older patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Method: We conducted a multicentric retrospective cohort study in 13 acute COVID-19 geriatric wards, from March 13 to April 15, 2020, in Paris area. All consecutive patients aged 70 years and older, with confirmed COVID-19, were enrolled., Results: Of the 821 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 86 (7) years; 58% were female; 85% had ≥2 comorbidities; 29% lived in an institution; and the median [interquartile range] Activities of Daily Living scale (ADL) score was 4 [2-6]. The most common symptoms at COVID-19 onset were asthenia (63%), fever (55%), dyspnea (45%), dry cough (45%), and delirium (25%). The in-hospital mortality was 31% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27-33). On multivariate analysis, at COVID-19 onset, the probability of in-hospital mortality was increased with male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% CI 1.30-2.63), ADL score <4 (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.25-2.70), asthenia (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.08-2.32), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 (OR 2.63; 95% CI 1.64-4.22), and specific COVID-19 anomalies on chest computerized tomography (OR 2.60; 95% CI 1.07-6.46)., Conclusions: This study provides new information about older patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized. A quick bedside evaluation at admission of sex, functional status, systolic arterial pressure, consciousness, respiratory rate, and asthenia can identify older patients at risk of unfavorable outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In some European countries, including France, older patients with functional decline in acute units are transferred to geriatric rehabilitation units. Some patients may not benefit from their stay in a geriatric rehabilitation unit and paradoxically worsened their functional status. Previous prognostic models of functional decline are based on only baseline parameters. However, some events can occur during rehabilitation and modify the association between baseline parameters and rehabilitation performance such as heart failure episode, falls or hospital-acquired infection (HAI). The incidence of functional decline in these units and factors associated with this decline have not been clearly identified., Methods: We used a prospective cohort of consecutive patients aged ≥75 years admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation unit in a French university hospital. The main endpoint was functional decline defined by at least an one-point decrease in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score during the stay. Baseline social and geriatric characteristics were recorded and comorbidities were sought by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G). During follow-up, hospital-acquired infection (HAI) was recorded, as was ADL score at discharge. Multivariate logistic regression and mediation analyses were used to identify factors associated with ADL decrease., Results: Among the 252 eligible patients, 160 (median age 84 years [interquartile range (IQR) 80-88] had available ADL scores at baseline (median score 7 [IQR 4-10]) and at discharge (median 9 [6-12]). Median CIRS-G score was 11 [8-13], 23 (14%) had a pulmonary HAI; 28 (17.5%) showed functional decline. On multivariable analysis, functional decline was associated with comorbidities (global CIRS-G score, P = 0.02, CIRS-G for respiratory disease [CIRS-G-R] ≥2, P = 0.02, or psychiatric disease, P = 0.02) and albumin level < 35 g/l (p = 0.03). Significant associations were found between functional decline and CIRS-G-R (OR 3.07 [95%CI 1.27-7.41], p = 0.01), between functional decline and pulmonary HAI (OR 3.12 [1.17-8.32],p = 0.02), and between CIRS-G-R and pulmonary HAI (OR 12.9[4.4-37.7], p = 0.0001). Theses associations and the reduced effect of CIRS-G-R on functional decline after adjusting for pulmonary HAI (OR 2.26 [0.83-6.16], p = 0.11) suggested partial mediation of pulmonary HAI in the relation between CIRS-G-R and functional decline., Conclusion: Baseline comorbidities were independently associated with functional decline in patients hospitalized in a geriatric rehabilitation unit. Pulmonary HAI may have mediated this association. We need to better identify patients at risk of functional decline before transfer to a rehabilitation unit and to test the implementation of modern and individual programs of rehabilitation outside the hospital for these patients.

Background: To assess and compare the ability of five mobility indices to predict 6-month mortality in older patients with cancer., Methods: All consecutive ambulatory older patients with cancer referred for a geriatric assessment before a cancer treatment decision were included in a prospective two-center cohort study (Physical Frailty in Elderly Cancer) between 2013 and 2017. The mobility indices compared were the short physical performance battery, gait speed, hand grip strength, the one-leg stance balance test, and repeated falls. The primary endpoint was 6-month overall mortality. The adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for each mobility index was estimated using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for sex, the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics, the body mass index, cancer site/extension, and the provision of supportive care alone. The models' predictive performances were assessed in terms of Harrell's C index, net reclassification improvement, and the standardized net benefit., Results: A total of 603 patients included (mean age: 81.2 ± 6.1 years; women: 54%; metastatic cancer: 45%). In multivariate analyses, an impairment in any of the mobility indices (with the exception of repeated falls) was independently associated with 6-month mortality following a geriatric assessment; the adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI] ranged from 2.35 [1.34-4.13] for the one-leg stance balance (C index: 0.74) to 3.03 [1.93-4.76] for the short physical performance battery (C index: 0.77). For each mobility index, inclusion in the multivariate model improved significantly the latter's prediction of 6-month mortality., Conclusions: Among mobility tests, short physical performance battery had the best discriminative value for predicting 6-month mortality in older patients with cancer., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background & Aims: the obesity survival paradox is an emergent issue in oncology, but its existence remains unclear particularly in older cancer patients. We aimed to assess the obesity survival paradox in older cancer patients., Methods: all consecutive cancer outpatients 65 years and older referred for geriatric assessment (GA) before a decision on cancer treatment between November 2013 and September 2016 were enrolled in the PF-EC cohort study. The main outcome was 6-month mortality. A Cox univariate and multivariate proportional hazard regression models were performed with baseline GA, oncological variables (cancer site, extension and treatment modalities) and C-reactive protein (CRP). We assessed the prognostic value of body mass index categories (i.e. malnutrition <21, 21 ≤ normal weight ≤24.9, 25 ≤ overweight ≤29.9 and obesity ≥30 kg/m 2 ) in the whole study population and according to the metastatic status., Results: 433 patients with a mean age of 81.2 ± 6.0 years were included, 51% were women, 44.3% had digestive cancers, 18% breast cancer and 14.5% lung cancer and 45% metastatic cancers. Eighty-eight of these patients (20.3%) were obese at baseline. Mortality rate was 17% during the 6-month follow-up period. After adjustment for sex, gait speed, Mini-Mental State Examination, cancer site and exclusive supportive care, obesity (compared to normal weight) was independently and negatively associated with 6-month mortality only in metastatic patients (aHR 0.17, 95% CI [0.03-0.92], P = 0.04)., Conclusion: our study confirms the obesity survival paradox in older cancer patients only in the metastatic group., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of prostate cancer (PCa) and its natural history in the elderly patient. To propose adaptations of geriatric evaluation specific to PCa. Recall therapeutic options and the treatment options specific to elderly patients., Method: Bibliographic research from the Medline bibliographic database (NLM Pubmed tool) and Embase, as well as on the websites of scientific societies of geriatrics, from the National Cancer Institute using the following keywords: elderly, geriatrics, prostate cancer, diagnosis, treatment., Results: The median age at diagnosis for PCa is 69 years old, making PCa the very type of cancer of the elderly. The specific mortality of the disease increases with age. This translates two of its characteristics. First, a diagnosis at higher grade and stage is more common in older patients than in younger patients. Secondly, use of curative therapeutic options is less common in elderly patients than in younger patients. SIOG recommends a specific geriatric assessment for patients with PCa, which may be useful, but the need for an initial detection of cognitive disorders is open to criticism. There is no therapeutic trial, if only prospective, dedicated to elderly patients with PCa. However, decision-making in the elderly patient with PCa must pursue two goals: first, the respect of the expectations specific to each patient and secondly, the search for the global clinical benefit; goals that should not be restricted to elderly patients., Conclusion: PCa in the elderly patient follow the current guidelines for diagnostic and for treatment. Compliance with these guidelines should eliminate both the late diagnosis and the under-treatment actually observed., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), is used in older patients with cancer to identify frailties, which can interfere with specialized treatment, and to help with therapeutic care. Functional Status (FS) is a domain of CGA in which Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) are evaluation tools., Objective: Our study reviewed the data available on the most frequently used tools to assess ADL and IADL in a geriatric oncology setting and their predictive values on overall survival (OS), toxicity, treatment feasibility or decision and postoperative complications., Design: This review was based on a systematic search of the MEDLINE® database for articles published in English and French between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. In the final analysis, 40 out of 4061 studies were included., Results: The most common ADL and IADL scales used are the Katz ADL (KL-ADL) in 25 studies and the Lawton IADL (IADL 8 ) in 22 studies. FS is predictive of OS in 11 out of 24 studies, chemotoxicity in 2 out of 7 studies, treatment feasibility in 2 out of 5 studies, treatment decisions in 2 out of 3 studies, and postoperative complications in 4 out of 6 studies., Conclusion: FS is of prognostic value in a geriatric oncology setting despite heterogeneous methodology and inclusion criteria, in the studies included. Additional research is needed to explore more precisely the prognostic value of FS in overall survival, toxicity, treatment feasibility or decision and postoperative complications, in older cancer patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and its natural history in the elderly patient. To propose adaptations of geriatric evaluation specific to RCC. Recall therapeutic options and the treatment options specific to elderly patients., Method: Bibliographic research from the Medline bibliographic database (NLM Pubmed tool) and Embase, as well as on the websites of scientific societies of geriatrics, from the National Cancer Institute using the following keywords: elderly, geriatrics, renal cell carcinoma, small renal mass, diagnosis, treatment., Results: The incidence of RCC increases in France and peaks between 70 and 80 years. This increase in incidence is mainly due to the diagnosis of small renal masses (SMR). The specific mortality of RCC increases with age (at least between 75 and 95 years). Tumor biopsy, especially of SMR, should be considered in the elderly patient. The geriatric assessment of patients with CaR has no specificity apart from specific evaluation of renal function and operative risk. There is no prospective therapeutic trials dedicated to elderly patients with localized RCC. Surgical treatment requires the use of fast track protocol (the modalities of which are being elaborated) in which geriatricians play a key role throughout the process. The role of percutaneous ablative treatment should be better defined in elderly patients. However, given their low specific mortality, surveillance of SRM (at least initially) is probably an interesting option, certainly under-used, although its impact on quality of life remains to be clarified. The overarching goal of geriatric oncology must guide the decisions of care in the older patient with CaR: first, the respect of patient-specific expectations and secondly the search for an overall clinical benefit; objectives that have no reason to be restricted to elderly patients., Conclusion: RCC is becoming a predominantly elderly cancer. It responds to the current general diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. It is desirable that clinical research help to better define the respective roles of percutaneous biopsy and treatment of localized RCC., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To explain the notion of frailty, then to explain how crucial is the detection of frailty detection in the elderly patient, and, in cases of suspected frailty, how crucial is the need for geriatric assessment. To describe (i) how this assessment of the elderly cancer patient is performed, (ii) how the results of this geriatric assessment must drive the decision making, and (iii) the role of the geriatrician in the care pathway., Method: Bibliographic research from the Medline bibliographic database (NLM Pubmed tool) and Embase, as well as on the websites of scientific geriatric societies, from the National Cancer Institute using the following keywords: elderly, geriatrics, cancer, frailty, assessment, decision making., Results: The goal of frailty detection is to optimize care, to maintain the independence and the survival of the patient. The prevalence of frailty increases with the age and the diagnosis of cancer. Detection of frailty in the elderly patient with cancer is performed using the G8 questionnaire recommended by the INCa. In case of anomaly or clinical justification, the patient receives a geriatric assessment, which is a multidimensional and multidisciplinary procedure. The clinician can call on the UCOG of the region in which he practices. The relevance of medical decisions will be based on the results of this geriatric assessment. The geriatrician plays a crucial role and will be involved throughout the care., Conclusion: The detection of frailty in the elderly patient with cancer is obligatory. Consecutive geriatric assessment can be performed by the UCOG of the region. The results of the geriatric assessment must serve as a basis for any therapeutic decision making and the preservation of the independence of the patient must remain the priority., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Faced with the lack of evidence-based medicine concerning the efficacy and tolerance of cancer treatments in the extremely heterogeneous elderly population, and with no standardised geriatric evaluation in geriatric oncology clinical trials, the intergroup Dialog set itself the objective of establishing a minimal standardised geriatric evaluation for clinical trials. The evaluation must be simple, short and effective. It must comprise validated and reproducible measurement tools. The Geriatric Core Dataset, made up of seven items, has been formalised and validated by national and international experts., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Cancer is a disease of older people, but this age group has often been excluded from clinical trials of cancer, which leads to poor transportability of standardized treatments in older cancer patients. One of the main reasons for the exclusion is the heterogeneity of older people in several domains: social environment, comorbidities, dependency, functional status, nutritional status, cognition status, and mood status. Comprehensive geriatric assessment aims to assess this heterogeneity and has identified frequent health problems often unknown before therapeutic decisions, which allows for targeted geriatric interventions with or without follow-up and appropriate cancer treatment selection. Several tools and scores have been developed for a complementary approach. These tools have the following characteristics: they screen for vulnerability to select patients who may benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment; are predictive tools for survival, postoperative complications, or chemotherapy-related toxicity; are decisional algorithms for cancer treatment; or define a core set of geriatric data to be collected in clinical cancer trials. Here, we present an overview of the geriatric tools that were published in PubMed from 2000 to 2017, that could help in the therapeutic decision-making for older cancer patients.

Background: To define a core set of geriatric data to be methodically collected in clinical cancer trials of older adults, enabling comparison across trials., Patients and Methods: Following a consensus approach, a panel of 14 geriatricians from oncology clinics identified seven domains of importance in geriatric assessment. Based on the international recommendations, geriatricians selected the mostly commonly used tools/items for geriatric assessment by domain (January-October 2015). The Geriatric Core Dataset (G-CODE) was progressively developed according to RAND appropriateness ratings and feedback during three successive Delphi rounds (July-September 2016). The face validity of the G-CODE was assessed with two large panels of health professionals (55 national and 42 international experts) involved both in clinical practice and cancer trials (March-September 2017)., Results and Discussion: After the last Delphi round, the tools/items proposed for the G-CODE were the following: (1) social assessment: living alone or support requested to stay at home; (2) functional autonomy: Activities of Daily Living (ADL) questionnaire and short instrumental ADL questionnaire; (3) mobility: Timed Up and Go test; (4) nutrition: weight loss during the past 6 months and body mass index; (5) cognition: Mini-Cog test; (6) mood: mini-Geriatric Depression Scale and (7) comorbidity: updated Charlson Comorbidity Index. More than 70% of national experts (42 from 20 cities) and international experts (31 from 13 countries) participated. National and international surveys showed good acceptability of the G-CODE. Specific points discussed included age-year cut-off, threshold of each tool/item and information about social support, but no additional item was proposed., Conclusion: We achieved formal consensus on a set of geriatric data to be collected in cancer trials of older patients. The dissemination and prospective use of the G-CODE is needed to assess its utility., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Older patients raise therapeutic challenges, because they constitute a heterogeneous population with multimorbidity. To appraise this complexity, geriatricians have developed a multidimensional comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which may be difficult to apply in primary care settings. Our primary objective was to compare the effect on morbimortality of usual care compared with two complex interventions combining educational seminars about CGA: a dedicated geriatric hotline for general practitioners (GPs) and CGA by trained nurses or GPs., Methods and Analysis: The Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing study is an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, three-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups and one control group. Patients must be 70 years or older with a long-term illness or with unscheduled hospitalisation in the past 3 months (750 patients planned). This study involves volunteering GPs practising in French primary care centres, with randomisation at the practice level. The multifaceted interventions for interventional arms comprise an educational interactive multiprofessional seminar for GPs and nurses, a geriatric hotline dedicated to GPs in case of difficulties and the performance of a CGA updated to primary care. The CGA is systematically performed by a nurse in arm 1 but is GP-led on a case-by-case basis in arm 2. The primary endpoint is a composite criterion comprising overall death, unscheduled hospitalisations, emergency admissions and institutionalisation within 12 months after inclusion. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models, with adjustment for potential confounders., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol was approved by an appropriate ethics committee (CPP Ile-de-France IV, Paris, France, approval April 2015;15 664). This study is conducted according to principles of good clinical practice in the context of current care and will provide useful knowledge on the clinical benefits achievable by CGA in primary care., Trial Registration Number: NCT02664454; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Cancer is a disease of the elderly as demonstrated by the epidemiological evolution of Western countries. Indeed, two third of cancers newly diagnosed occur over 65 years. However, older cancer patients have been often excluded from clinical trials in oncology and the extrapolation of cancer treatments in this population remains difficult in practice. Scientific societies recommend that a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) be performed in patients aged 70 and over and selected using screening tools for frailty such as the G8 index. The CGA allows to detect aging-related vulnerabilities in various domains (comorbidities, polypharmacy, autonomy, nutrition, mobility, cognition, mood, social) and associated with adverse outcomes during cancer treatment (reduced overall survival, perioperative complications, toxicity-related chemotherapy). The CGA is allow to elaborate a personalized treatment plan in geriatric oncology. However, to date, no algorithms based on CGA is validated to guide therapeutic decision in geriatric oncology. The collaboration between geriatrician and oncologist remains essential to elaborate an appropriate therapeutic strategy and limit the situations of over- and under-treatment. This article presents the set of tools and scores used in geriatric oncology to guide the therapeutic decision., (Copyright © 2017 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The G8 screening tool has been developed to identify older cancer patients requiring a geriatric assessment for tailoring therapy. Little is known about its prognostic value, particularly by tumour site. An optimised version has been recently developed, but no prognostic information is available. We compared the prognostic value of both instruments overall and by tumour site., Methods: Data were from a prospective cohort of cancer patients ≥70 years old referred to 1 of 6 French geriatric oncology clinics between 2007 and 2014 (n = 1333). Endpoints were overall 1- and 3-year survival. Cox proportional-hazards models were built to assess the predictive value of abnormal G8 and modified-G8 scores, based on published cut-offs or by classes of increasing risk. Sensitivity analyses involved adjusting for age, gender, treatment, metastasis, and tumour site (digestive, breast, urinary tract, prostate, other solid cancers, and haematological malignancies) and stratifying by tumour site and metastatic status., Results: Abnormal scores were independently associated with overall 1-year survival: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 4.3[G8]/4.9[modified-G8] and 3-year survival: aHR = 2.9/2.6; all p <0.0001. Associations persisted after stratifying by metastatic status and in most cancer sites (exceptions: colorectal (G8) and upper digestive cancer (both tools) [1-year analysis]; digestive cancers (both tools) [3-year analysis]). For both tools, classes of increasing risk showed a graded relationship with mortality (p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Our results identified both abnormal G8 and modified-G8 scores as strong and consistent predictors of overall survival, regardless of metastatic status or tumour site. These findings strengthen the clinical utility of these instruments in the geriatric oncology setting., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the prevalence of disability and the oncologic factors associated with disability in older outpatients with cancer., Materials and Methods: The Physical Frailty in Elderly Cancer patients (PF-EC) study (France) is a prospective bicentric observational cohort study. Two hundred and ninety outpatients with cancer were included. A cross-sectional analysis of oncologic factors and geriatric variables associated with disability that were collected using a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) was conducted. Disability was defined as impairment in activities of daily living (ADL) and/or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), simplified to four items. Univariate and multivariate logistic models of disabled patients were performed. The three final multivariate models were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC/ROC) of the logistic model., Results: The mean age was 80.6years, and 51% of the patients were women with various types of cancer. The prevalence of disability was 67.6%. No oncologic factors (cancer site, cancer extension) were associated with disability. Impaired mobility, poor functional status, depressive mood, cognitive impairment and polypharmacy were independently associated with disability (P<0.05). The AUC/ROC of the final models was similar., Conclusion: Disability was highly prevalent in older cancer outpatients before cancer treatment but was not associated with oncologic factors. Impaired mobility, depressed mood, cognitive impairment and polypharmacy were the geriatric variables significantly and independently associated with disability. Identifying these factors prior to cancer treatment could enable the implementation of corrective actions to improve patient autonomy before treatment and during follow-up., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Frailty classifications of older patients with cancer have been developed to assist physicians in selecting cancer treatments and geriatric interventions. They have not been compared, and their performance in predicting outcomes has not been assessed. Our objectives were to assess agreement among four classifications and to compare their predictive performance in a large cohort of in- and outpatients with various cancers. Patients and Methods We prospectively included 1,021 patients age 70 years or older who had solid or hematologic malignancies and underwent a geriatric assessment in one of two French teaching hospitals between 2007 and 2012. Among them, 763 were assessed using four classifications: Balducci, International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 1, SIOG2, and a latent class typology. Agreement was assessed using the κ statistic. Outcomes were 1-year mortality and 6-month unscheduled admissions. Results All four classifications had good discrimination for 1-year mortality (C-index ≥ 0.70); discrimination was best with SIOG1. For 6-month unscheduled admissions, discrimination was good with all four classifications (C-index ≥ 0.70). For classification into three (fit, vulnerable, or frail) or two categories (fit v vulnerable or frail and fit or vulnerable v frail), agreement among the four classifications ranged from very poor (κ ≤ 0.20) to good (0.60 < κ ≤ 0.80). Agreement was best between SIOG1 and the latent class typology and between SIOG1 and Balducci. Conclusion These four frailty classifications have good prognostic performance among older in- and outpatients with various cancers. They may prove useful in decision making about cancer treatments and geriatric interventions and/or in stratifying older patients with cancer in clinical trials.

Background: Several studies have evaluated the independent prognostic value of impairments in single geriatric-assessment (GA) components in elderly cancer patients. None identified homogeneous subgroups. Our aims were to identify such subgroups based on combinations of GA components and to assess their associations with treatment decisions, admission, and death., Methods: We prospectively included 1,021 patients aged ≥70 years who had solid or hematologic malignancies and who underwent a GA in one of two French teaching hospitals. Two geriatricians independently selected candidate GA parameters for latent class analysis, which was then performed on the 821 cases without missing data. Age, gender, tumor site, metastatic status, and inpatient versus outpatient status were used as active covariates and predictors of class membership. Outcomes were cancer treatment decisions, overall 1-year mortality, and 6-month unscheduled admissions. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the overall population of 1,021 patients and on 375 newly enrolled patients., Results: We identified four classes: relatively healthy (LC1, 28%), malnourished (LC2, 36%), cognitive and mood impaired (LC3, 15%), and globally impaired (LC4, 21%). Tumor site, metastatic status, age, and in/outpatient status independently predicted class membership (p < .001). In adjusted pairwise comparisons, compared to LC1, the three other LCs were associated with higher risks of palliative treatment, death, and unscheduled admission (p ≤ .05). LC4 was associated with 1-year mortality and palliative treatment compared to LC2 and LC3 (p ≤ .05)., Conclusion: We identified four health profiles that may help physicians select cancer treatments and geriatric interventions. Researchers may find these profiles useful for stratifying patients in clinical trials., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Scientific societies recommend the implementation of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in cancer patients aged 70 and older. The EGA is an interdisciplinary multidimensional diagnostic process seeking to assess the frail older person in order to develop a coordinated plan of treatment and long-term follow-up. Identification of comorbidities and age-induced physiological changes that may increase the risk of anticancer treatment toxicities is essential to better assess the risk-benefit ratio in elderly cancer patients. The systematic implementation of a CGA for each patient is difficult to perform in daily practice. Therefore, it is recommended to screen vulnerable patients who will benefit from a complete CGA. Our work presents the vulnerability screening tools validated by at least two independent studies in a cancer elderly population setting. Among seven screening tools, the G8 and the VES13 are the most effective, and have been validated specifically in older population with cancer. The G8 is recommended by scientific societies and the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) because of its easy implementation in daily clinical practice, its high sensitivity and fair specificity. Although studies are underway to improve its performance, the G8 is currently the simplest tool to routinely identify older cancer patients who should have a complete assessment in geriatric oncology., (Copyright © 2016 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: A multidimensional geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended in older cancer patients to inventory health problems and tailor treatment decisions accordingly but requires considerable time and human resources. The G8 is among the most sensitive screening tools for selecting patients warranting a full GA but has limited specificity. We sought to develop and validate an optimized version of the G8., Patients and Methods: We used a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years referred to geriatricians for GA (2007-2012: n = 729 [training set]; 2012-2014: n = 414 [validation set]). Abnormal GA was defined as at least one impaired domain across seven validated tests. Multiple correspondence analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and bootstrapped internal validation were performed sequentially., Results: The final model included six independent predictors for abnormal GA: weight loss, cognition/mood, performance status, self-rated health status, polypharmacy (≥ 6 medications per day), and history of heart failure/coronary heart disease. For the original G8, sensitivity was 87.2% (95% confidence interval, 84.3-89.7), specificity 57.7% (47.3-67.7), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 86.5% (83.5-89.6). The modified G8 had corresponding values of 89.2% (86.5-91.5), 79.0% (69.4-86.6), and 91.6% (89.3; 93.9), with higher AUROC values for all tumor sites and stable properties on the validation set., Conclusion: A modified G8 screening tool exhibited better diagnostic performance with greater uniformity across cancer sites and required only six items. If these features are confirmed in other settings, the modified tool may facilitate selection for a full GA in older patients with cancer., Implications for Practice: Several screening tools have been developed to identify older patients with cancer likely to benefit from a complete geriatric assessment, but none combines appropriate sensitivity and specificity. Based on a large prospective cohort study, an optimized G8 tool was developed, combining a systematic statistical approach with expert judgment to ensure optimal discriminative power and clinical relevance. The improved screening tool achieves high sensitivity, high specificity, better homogeneity across cancer types, and greater parsimony with only six items needed, facilitating selection for a full geriatric assessment., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Objective: We aim to assess the prevalence and associated factors of clinical depression in older patients with cancer., Methods: We studied a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years and referred to geriatric oncology clinics between 2007 and 2012. A multidimensional geriatric assessment was performed before choosing the cancer-treatment strategy. Clinical depression was diagnosed by senior geriatricians by a semi-structured interview. It encompassed criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition) and of the International Classification of Diseases (10th edition). Multivariate logistic regression was performed., Results: Of 1121 consecutive patients, 1092 had available data (mean age, 80.4 years; women, 48.8%; metastases, 51.3%; cancer location: colorectal 21.1%, breast 16.8%, kidney, bladder or urinary tract 14.0%, and prostate 11.4%). The overall prevalence of clinical depression was 28.4% (95% confidence interval, 25.7-31.2). Factors independently associated with clinical depression by multivariate analysis adjusting for all following factors plus gender, and metastasis were impaired mobility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.35; 1.59-3.46), impaired functional status defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥ 2 (aOR, 2.39; 1.66-3.43) or as activities of daily living < 6 (aOR, 2.43; 1.73-3.41), inpatient status (aOR, 1.68; 1.20-2.37), inadequate social support (aOR, 1.66; 1.16-2.37), cognitive impairment (aOR, 1.76; 1.24-2.49), polypharmacy defined as five or more non-antidepressant drugs (aOR, 1.65; 1.14-2.38), multimorbidity (aOR additional CIRS-G point , 1.08; 1.04-1.12), and cancer-related pain (aOR, 1.76; 1.26-2.46)., Conclusion: In older patients with as-yet untreated cancer at various sites and stages, clinical depression was highly prevalent. Clinical depression was independently associated with several geriatric assessment findings (impaired mobility and function, inadequate social support, cognitive impairment, polypharmacy, and multimorbidity) independently from gender, tumor site, and metastatic status., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Several frailty screening tests in older cancer patients were developed but their statistical performance is low. We aimed to assess whether measurement of usual gait speed (GS) alone could be used as a frailty screening test in older cancer patients. This systematic review was conducted on "pub med" between 1984 and 2014 and included reviews and original studies. Eligibility criteria were: GS over a short distance, alone or included in composite walking tests (Timed Get Up and Go test: TGUG, Short Physical Performance Battery: SPPB) in older people (aged 65 and over) living in a community setting and predictive value of GS on medical complications associated with frailty. 46 articles were finally selected. GS alone is consensual and recommended for screening sarcopenia in elderly. A slow GS is predictive of early death, disability, falls and hospitalization/institutionalization in older people living in a community setting. GS alone is comparable to composite walking tests that do not provide additional information on the medical complications associated with frailty. Despite few studies in geriatric oncology, GS seems to predict overall survival and disability. We suggest GS over 4m (at a threshold of 1m/s) as a new frailty screening test in older cancer patients (65 and over) to guide the implementation of a comprehensive geriatric assessment during the initial management phase or during follow-up. Prospective cohort studies are needed to validate this algorithm and compare it with other screening tool., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Among patients admitted for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), half are aged 75 years or over. The high prevalence of co-morbidities and functional impairments in this age group may affect patient outcomes., Objective: To assess the association between co-morbidities, functional status and in-hospital mortality in patients with ADHF aged ≥75 years., Design: A prospective, multicentre cohort study., Setting: Five French hospitals., Subjects: Five hundred and fifty-five patients aged ≥75 years admitted to the emergency department with ADHF., Methods: Baseline clinical data and co-morbidities were recorded at admission. Functional status and cognition were assessed using the Katz index and Mini-Mental Status Examination score, respectively. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality., Results: We found high prevalences of co-morbidities and functional impairments including hypertension (74.0%), atrial fibrillation (40.2%), prior acute coronary syndrome (32.3%) and diabetes (18.2%). The average creatinine clearance was 56.3 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (interquartile range, 39.2-77.0). In-hospital mortality was 67/555 (12.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.4-14.8). In multivariate analysis, in-hospital mortality showed a statistically positive association with prior loss of self-sufficiency (Odds ratio [OR]: 5.85 [2.25-12.19]), hyperglycaemia (OR: 1.80 [1.26-2.54] per 1 SD increase), prior cerebral ischaemic event (OR: 3.56 [1.51-8.44]) and troponin I elevation above upper limit of normal (OR: 2.81 [1.37-5.77]). In addition, systolic blood pressure (OR: 0.98 [0.97-0.99] per 1 mmHg increase) and creatinine clearance (OR: 0.72 [0.51-1.00] per 1 SD increase) were negatively associated with in-hospital mortality., Conclusion: Co-morbidities and functional impairments are associated with a worse short-term prognosis in patients aged ≥75 years admitted for ADHF. Assessing these parameters at admission may improve patient management., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cancer is common in older patients, who raise specific treatment challenges due to aging-related, organ-specific physiologic changes and the presence in most cases of comorbidities capable of affecting treatment tolerance and outcomes. Identifying comorbid conditions and physiologic changes due to aging allows oncologists to better assess the risk/benefit ratio and to adjust the treatment accordingly. Conducting a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is one approach developed for this purpose. We reviewed the evidence on the usefulness of CGA for assessing health problems and predicting cancer treatment outcomes, functional decline, morbidity, and mortality in older patients with solid malignancies., Methods: We searched Medline for articles published in English between January 1, 2000 and April 14, 2014, and reporting prospective observational or interventional studies of CGA feasibility or effectiveness in patients aged ≥65 years with solid malignancies. We identified studies with at least 100 patients, a multivariate analysis, and assessments of at least five of the following CGA domains: nutrition, cognition, mood, functional status, mobility and falls, polypharmacy, comorbidities, and social environment., Results: All types of CGA identified a large number of unrecognized health problems capable of interfering with cancer treatment. CGA results influenced 21%-49% of treatment decisions. All CGA domains were associated with chemotoxicity or survival in at least one study. The abnormalities that most often predicted mortality and chemotoxicity were functional impairment, malnutrition, and comorbidities., Conclusion: The CGA uncovers numerous health problems in elderly patients with cancer and can affect treatment decisions. Functional impairment, malnutrition, and comorbidities are independently associated with chemotoxicity and/or survival. Only three randomized published studies evaluated the effectiveness of CGA-linked interventions. Further research into the effectiveness of the CGA in improving patient outcomes is needed.

Background: Survival is poorer in elderly patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas [HNSCCs] than in younger patients. Possible explanations include a contribution of co-morbidities to mortality, frequent refusal of standard therapy, and the use of suboptimal treatments due to concern about toxicities. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment [CGA] is a multidimensional assessment of general health that can help to customise treatment and follow-up plans. The CGA has been proven effective in several health settings but has not been evaluated in randomised studies of patients with cancer. Our aim here was to assess the impact of the CGA on overall survival, function, and nutritional status of elderly patients with HNSCC., Methods/design: EGeSOR is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial in patients aged 70 years or older and receiving standard care for HNSCC. The intervention includes four components: the CGA conducted by a geriatrician before cancer treatment, participation of the same geriatrician in cancer treatment selection, a standardised geriatric therapeutic intervention designed by the same geriatrician; and geriatric follow-up for 24 months. The primary endpoint, assessed after 6 months, is a composite criterion including death, functional impairment [Activities of Daily Living score decrease ≥ 2], and weight loss ≥ 10%. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, unscheduled admissions, quality of life, treatment toxicities, costs, and completion of the planned cancer treatment. A centralised online system is used to perform 1:1 randomisation with a minimisation algorithm for centre, age, T and N stages, and tumour site [oral, oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, or laryngeal]. The estimated sample size is 704 patients, who are being recruited by 14 centres in 9 French cities., Discussion: EGeSOR is the first randomised trial of the CGA in elderly cancer patients. We expect the CGA to have direct clinical benefits on the management of elderly patients with HNSCC. If this expectation is fulfilled, the trial may lead to modifications of the management model for elderly patients with cancer., Trial Registration: Trial registration: NCT02025062.

Purpose: Cancer is the leading cause of death among patients aged 65 years and older. In this population, the cancer diagnosis is often made at a more advanced stage and worse prognosis than in younger patients. Specific mortality in older patients is superior to that reported in their younger counterparts. Moreover, the impact of curative treatment that has proven benefit in overall population may be not well studied in the sub-group of older patients. Thus, the management of cancer in the elderly is a major public health concern in most Western countries., Methods/results: In this review, we summarize this challenging treatment decision-making in older urologic patients with prostate, kidney or bladder cancer. The estimation of life expectancy remains a difficult task. Chronological age should not be considered as the main decisive factor anymore when considering aggressive cancer treatment. Comorbidities increase the complexity of cancer management and affect survival. Multidisciplinary evaluation and comprehensive geriatrics assessment using specific scales are critical to improve the treatment decision-making and to minimize both overtreatment of low-risk disease and undertreatment of high-risk disease. When an aggressive and potential quality-of-life-threatening treatment is scheduled after this comprehensive geriatrics assessment, personalized patient care must be early predefined by the geriatric team., Conclusions: In the elderly, an enhanced support including specific geriatric assessment and management optimizes the treatment course, including preoperative optimization, prevents treatment-related complications and loss of autonomy using or not geriatrics clinic or rehabilitation units, and limits the length of hospital stay and costs.

Objectives: To determine whether a new multimodal comprehensive discharge-planning intervention would reduce emergency rehospitalizations or emergency department (ED) visits for very old inpatients., Design: Six-month prospective, randomized (Zelen design), parallel-group, open-label trial., Setting: Six acute geriatric units (AGUs) in Paris and its surroundings., Participants: Six hundred sixty-five consecutive inpatients aged 70 and older (intervention group (IG) n = 317; control group (CG) n = 348)., Intervention: Intervention-dedicated geriatricians different from those in the study centers implemented the intervention, which targeted three risk factors for preventable readmissions and consisted of three components: comprehensive chronic medication review, education on self-management of disease, and detailed transition-of-care communication with outpatient health professionals., Measurements: Emergency hospitalization or ED visit 3 and 6 months after discharge, as assessed by telephone calls to the participant, the caregiver, and the general practitioner and confirmed with the hospital administrative database., Results: Twenty-three percent of IG participants were readmitted to hospital or had an ED visit 3 months after discharge, compared with 30.5% of CG participants (P = .03); at 6 months, the proportions were 35.3% and 40.8%, respectively (P = .15). Event-free survival was significantly higher in the IG at 3 months (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.53-0.97, P = .03) but not at 6 months (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.64-1.04, P = .10)., Conclusion: This intervention was effective in reducing rehospitalizations and ED visits for very elderly participants 3 but not 6 months after their discharge from the AGU. Future research should investigate the effect of this intervention of transitional care in a larger population and in usual acute and subacute geriatric care., (© 2011, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2011, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Purpose: To identify Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) components independently associated with changes in planned cancer treatment., Patients and Methods: We prospectively included 375 consecutive elderly patients with cancer (ELCAPA01 study) assessed by geriatricians using the CGA. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with changes in the cancer treatment (intensification, decrease, or delayed > 2 weeks). Change was defined as a difference between the initial treatment proposal and the final treatment selected in a multidisciplinary meeting., Results: Mean age was 79.6 years (standard deviation [SD], 5.6 years), and 197 (52.5%) were women. The most common tumor location was the digestive system (58.7%). The mean number of comorbidities was 4.2 (SD, 2.7) per patient, and the mean Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score was 11.8 (SD, 5.3). After the CGA, the initial cancer treatment plan was modified for 78 (20.8%) of 375 patients (95% CI, 16.8 to 25.3), usually to decrease treatment intensity (63 [80.8%] of 78 patients). By univariate analysis, cancer treatment changes were associated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2 (73.3% in the group with changes v 41.1% in the in the group without changes; P < .001), dependency for one or more activities of daily living (ADL; 59.0% v 24.2%; P < .001), malnutrition (81.8% v 51.2%; P < .001), cognitive impairment (38.5% v 24.9%; P = .023), depression (52.6% v 21.7%; P < .001), and greater number of comorbidities (mean, 4.8 [SD, 2.9] v 4.0 [SD, 2.6]; P = .02). By multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with cancer treatment changes were a lower ADL score (odds ratio [OR], 1.25 per 0.5-point decrease; CI, 1.04 to 1.49; P = .016) and malnutrition (OR, 2.99; CI, 1.36 to 6.58; P = .007)., Conclusion: Functional status assessed by the ADL score and malnutrition were independently associated with changes in cancer treatment.