Determining clinically important differences in health-related quality of life in older patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or surgery.

PURPOSE: Using the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, we aimed to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes for older cancer patients with a geriatric risk profile, as defined by the geriatric 8 (G8) health screening tool, undergoing treatment. Simultaneously, we assessed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes. METHODS: Our analysis included 1424 (G8 ≤ 14) older patients with cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy (n = 683) or surgery (n = 741). Anchor-based methods, linking the GHS score to clinical indicators, were used to determine MCID between baseline and follow-up at 3 months. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) was used to exclude MCID estimates too small for interpretation. Logistic regressions analysed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes. RESULTS: The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS15), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Fatigue and ECOG Performance Status (PS) were selected as clinical anchors. In the surgery group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (5*, 11*), GDS15 (5*, 2) and VAS Fatigue (3, 9*). In the chemotherapy group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (8*, 7*), GDS15 (5, 4) and VAS Fatigue (5, 5*). Estimates with * were > 0.2 SD threshold. Patients experiencing pain or malnutrition (surgery group) or fatigue (chemotherapy group) at baseline showed a significantly stable or improved HRQOL (p < 0.05) after their treatment. CONCLUSION: The reported MCID for improvement and deterioration depended on the anchor used and treatment received. The estimates can be used to evaluate significant changes in HRQOL and to determine sample sizes in clinical trials.

A Belgian Survey on Geriatric Assessment in Oncology Focusing on Large-Scale Implementation and Related Barriers and Facilitators.

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.