Search

Introduction: Optimizing the approach to older adults with cancer is now a priority given the increasing frequency of new cancer diagnoses that are made in the older population. The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) represents the gold-standard for (1) defining prognosis and ability to withstand cancer treatments, (2) exploring the multiple aspects that define the complexity of frail older persons, and (3) designing person-tailored interventions., Materials and Methods: In this document, based on a comprehensive revision of the literature, the Italian Society for Geriatrics and Gerontology proposes a CGA model (ONCOGER CGA) to be adopted by oncology centers for their routine approach to older patients with cancer., Results and Discussion: A widespread use of this standardized CGA format will facilitate comparisons across institutions, promote studies based on a multidimensional patient assessment, and foster the inclusion of geriatric endpoints in oncological clinical trials. Furthermore, we predict that the use of a standardized CGA approach will increase the integration of geriatricians into oncology care teams with the final result of improving therapeutic choices and clinical outcomes., (© 2020 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Simple Summary: In the present pilot study, we developed and validated a new accurate, quick-to-use screening tool for stratifying frailty and the risk of mortality in oncological geriatric patients. Frailty detection with comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is of pivotal importance in older cancer patients to avoid over- or under-treatment with chemotherapy and to detect those at increased risk for poor outcomes. Several tools have been developed to capture the complexity of frailty, but only a few were explicitly conceived for older patients with cancer. In this study, we consecutively enrolled older patients with breast cancer during the preoperative evaluation as the development cohort. We evaluated seventy patients with different types of cancer admitted to our OncoGeriatric Clinic for the validation cohort. We then evaluated the relationship between MPI and CGA items, and we finally realized a screening tool based on the combination of the significant variables, now called the Multidimensional Oncological Frailty Scale (MOFS). Background: Frailty detection with comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is of pivotal importance in older patients with cancer to avoid over- or under-treatment and to detect those at increased risk for poor outcomes. Several tools have been developed to capture the complexity of frailty, but only a few were explicitly conceived for older adults with cancer. The study aimed at developing and validating a multidimensional, easy-to-use diagnostic tool for early-risk stratification in patients with cancer, called the Multidimensional Oncological Frailty Scale (MOFS). Methods: In this single-center prospective study, we consecutively enrolled 163 older women (age ≥ 75 years) with breast cancer, screened with a G8 score ≤ 14 during the outpatient preoperative evaluation at our breast centre, as the development cohort. Seventy patients with different types of cancer admitted to our OncoGeriatric Clinic served as the validation cohort. Using stepwise linear regression analysis, we evaluated the relationship between Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) and CGA items, and, finally, realized a screening tool based on the combination of the significant variables. Results: The mean age of the study population was 80.4 ± 5.8 years, while the mean age of the validation cohort was 78.6 ± 6.6 years [42 women (60%)]. A composite model of the Clinical Frailty Scale, G8, and hand grip strength test showed a strong correlation with MPI (R= −0.712, p < 0.001). The MOFS accuracy in the prediction of mortality was optimal in both the development and the validation cohorts (AUC 0.82 and 0.87; p < 0.001 and 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: MOFS represents a new, accurate, quick-to-use frailty screening tool for stratifying the risk of mortality in geriatric cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment is a multidimensional and multidisciplinary evaluation designed for elderly patients with the goal of structuring tailored care and follow-up. Despite the known benefits of this approach, the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment is not universally applied to elderly cancer patients due to economic and practical barriers. This narrative review aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment adopted in geriatric oncology. The results revealed a lack of research on the topic, but recurrent cost-saving effects of this approach in geriatric oncology settings were highlighted—suggesting a positive cost-effectiveness ratio. Further structured research with comprehensive economic evaluations is needed to confirm these findings. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and the corresponding geriatric interventions are beneficial for community-dwelling older persons in terms of reduced mortality, disability, institutionalisation and healthcare utilisation. However, the value of CGA in the management of older cancer patients both in terms of clinical outcomes and in cost-effectiveness remains to be fully established, and CGA is still far from being routinely implemented in geriatric oncology. This narrative review aims to analyse the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CGA adopted in geriatric oncology, identify the relevant parameters used in the literature and provide recommendations for future research. The review was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane databases, covering published studies without selection by the publication year. The extracted data were categorised according to the study design, participants and measures of cost-effectiveness, and the results are summarised to state the levels of evidence. The review conforms to the SANRA guidelines for quality assessment. Twenty-nine studies out of the thirty-seven assessed for eligibility met the inclusion criteria. Although there is a large heterogeneity, the overall evidence is consistent with the measurable benefits of CGA in terms of reducing the in-hospital length of stay and treatment toxicity, leaning toward a positive cost-effectiveness of the interventions and supporting CGA implementation in geriatric oncology clinical practice. More research employing full economic evaluations is needed to confirm this evidence and should focus on CGA implications both from patient-centred and healthcare system perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) and standard chest X‐ray (CXR) in older patients admitted to an acute‐care geriatric ward for suspected acute pneumonia, and to develop an easy‐to‐use diagnostic tool, now called Pneumonia Lung Ultrasound Score (PLUS), for early risk stratification. DESIGN: Prospective, single‐center, cohort study. SETTING: Acute‐care geriatric ward of tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals, aged 65 years and older, with suspected acute pneumonia. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were stratified according to the Multidimensional Prognostic Index. All the patients underwent CXR and LUS, whereas chest computed tomography was performed in case of mismatch between LUS and CXR. Using logistic multivariate regression, we assessed the influence of age, sex, multimorbidity, cognitive impairment, and clinical biomarkers in the misdiagnosis of acute pneumonia. Finally, an easy‐to‐perform diagnostic tool based on the combination of biomarkers (brain natriuretic peptide, high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein, and partial pressure arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio) and LUS was realized. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to verify the predictive accuracy of PLUS, CXR, and LUS in pneumonia diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 132 subjects (69% women; mean age = 85.3 ± 6.9 years) were enrolled in the study. Acute pneumonia was diagnosed in 94 of 132 cases. LUS showed higher diagnostic accuracy compared with CXR (0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.85–0.93) vs 0.67 (95% CI = 0.58–0.75)) in detecting pneumonic consolidations. A higher degree of cognitive impairment was associated with both LUS and CXR pneumonia misdiagnosis (odds ratio = 1.30 (95% CI = 1.04–1.65)). PLUS showed higher predictive accuracy in the diagnosis of acute pneumonia compared with LUS (AUC = 0.92 (95% CI = 0.87–0.98) vs 0.86 (95% CI = 0.80–0.96); P =.029). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the higher diagnostic accuracy of LUS compared with CXR for acute pneumonia in older adults. Nonetheless, the accuracy of PLUS, an easy‐to‐use, biomarker‐derived diagnostic tool, was superior to LUS regardless of patientsʼ degree of frailty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Early readmission rate has been regarded as an indicator of in-hospital and post-discharge quality of care. Evaluating the contributing factors is crucial to optimize the healthcare and target the intervention. In this study we evaluated the potential for preventing 30-day hospital readmission in a cohort of older patients and identified possible risk factors for readmission. Patients and methods: Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) codes of patients consecutively hospitalized for acute disease in the Geriatrics Unit of the University Hospital of Pisa within a 1-year window were recorded. All the patients had received a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Crossing and elaboration of the DRG codes was performed by the Potentially Preventable Readmission Grouping software (3M™ Corporation). DRG codes were classified as stand-alone admissions (SA), index admissions (IA) and potentially preventable readmissions (PPR) within a time window of 30 days after discharge. Results: In total, 1263 SA and 171 IA were identified, with an overall PPR rate of 11.9%. Hospitalizations were significantly longer in IA and PPR than SA (p<0.05). The more frequent readmission causes were acute heart failure, pulmonary edema, sepsis, pneumonia and stroke. In acute heart failure a nonlinear U-shaped readmission trend (with nadir at 5 days of hospitalization) was observed while, in all the other DRG codes, the PPR rate increased with increasing length of hospitalization. Comprehensive geriatric assessment showed a significantly lower degree of disability and comorbidity in SA than IA patients. At stepwise regression analysis, a high degree of disability and comorbidity as well as the diagnosis of sepsis emerged as independent risk factors for PPR. Conclusion: Addressing PPR is crucial, especially in older patients. The adequacy of treatment during hospitalization (especially in cases of sepsis) as well as the setting of a comprehensive discharge plan, accounting for comorbidity and disability of the patients, are essential to reduce PPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Atrial fibrillation represents a major cause of mortality in older people. • Frail and oldest-old patients are rarely included in clinical trials. • Frail anticoagulated patients survived longer that not-anticoagulated ones. • The risk of clinically relevant bleeding was not significantly increased. • Comprehensive geriatric assessment may be useful in anticoagulation decision making. Atrial Fibrillation (AF) represents a major cause of mortality and morbidity in older people; however, oldest-old frail patients are usually excluded from clinical trials. Aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy on long-term overall survival and clinically relevant bleedings in a large cohort of hospitalised frail, oldest-old patients with AF. Prospective, observational, cohort study, evaluating patients consecutively hospitalized for acute illnesses in our Geriatrics Unit (January 2013-July 2017). Participants were divided in two groups, AF and sinus rhythm (SR). Besides recording demographic characteristics and clinical history, comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) was obtained. AF patients [1808/5093 (35.5%), 58.5% women] were older, with higher burden of comorbidity than those with SR. At discharge, HAS-BLED [OR 0.77 (95%CI 0.67-0.90), cognitive impairment [OR 0.92 (95%CI 0.90-0.95)], malnutrition [OR 0.74 (95%CI 0.57-0.97)] and CHA2DS2VASc [OR 1.33 (95%CI 1.20-1.47)] emerged as significant independent predictors of anticoagulant prescription. AF patients showed significantly reduced overall survival (OS) than those with SR (11.4 vs 19.4 months, p <.001). However, anticoagulated AF patients (75.2%) had three-times longer OS than those not anticoagulated (15.0 vs 5.6 months, p <.001), comparable to SR patients after adjustment for potential confounders [HR 1.04 (95%CI 0.99–1.10)]. ED readmittance risk for clinically relevant bleeding did not differ between AF patients receiving or not anticoagulation [HR 1.04 (95%CI 0.76-1.14)] anticoagulation therapy was associated with significant increase of long-term OS without increased risk of clinically relevant bleeding. CGA resulted an useful tool in OAC therapy decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]