Telemedicine in geriatric oncology - lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Telemedicine quickly became integrated into healthcare caused by the Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Rapid use of telemedicine into healthcare systems was supported by the World Health Organization and other prominent national organizations to reduce transmission of the virus while continuing to provide access to care. In this review, we explored the effect of this swift change in care and its impact on older adults with cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Older adults are susceptible to the COVID-19 virus caused by various risk factors, such as comorbidity, frailty, decreased immunity, and cancer increases vulnerability to infection, hospitalization, and mortality. We found three major themes emerged in the literature published in the past 18 months, including access to care, telemedicine modes of communication, and the use of technology by older adults with cancer. These findings have brought insight into issues regarding healthcare disparities. SUMMARY: The utilization of telemedicine by older adults with cancer has potential future benefits with the integration of technology preparation prior to the patient's initial visit and addressing known health disparities. The hybrid model of care provides in-person and or remote access to clinicians which may allow older adults with cancer the flexibility needed to obtain quality cancer care.

Outcome prioritization and preferences among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy in a randomized clinical trial.

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.

Healthcare providers' experiences of continuing care for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused great strain on older adults with cancer and their healthcare providers. This study explored healthcare providers' reported changes in cancer care, clinical barriers to care, patient questions, and the overall experiences of caring for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: The Advocacy Committee of the Cancer and Aging Research Group and the Association of Community Cancer Centers developed a survey for healthcare providers of adults with cancer, inquiring about their experiences during the pandemic. Responses from the survey's four open-ended items were analyzed by four independent coders for identification of common themes using deductive and inductive methods. RESULTS: Participants (n = 137) represented a variety of demographic and clinical experiences. Six overall themes emerged, including (1) telehealth use, (2) concerns for patient mental health, (3) patient physical and social isolation, (4) patient fear of contracting COVID-19, (5) continued disruptions to cancer care, and (6) patients seeking guidance, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Questions fielded by providers focused on the COVID-19 vaccination's safety and efficacy during older adults' cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Additional resources (e.g., technology support, established care guidelines, and sufficient staffing) are needed to support older adults with cancer and healthcare providers during the pandemic. Future research should explore universally effective in-person and virtual treatment strategies for older adults with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Persistence of telehealth barriers, particularly a lack of infrastructure to support telehealth visits, social isolation, and restrictive visitor policies as a result of COVID-19, negatively impacted the mental health of older adults with cancer.

Healthcare providers' attitudes towards delay in cancer treatment during COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented obstacles leading to delays in treatment for older adults with cancer. Due to limited resources at the height of the pandemic, healthcare providers were constantly faced with ethical dilemmas regarding postponing or rescheduling care for their patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two survey-based studies were conducted at different time-points during the pandemic looking at factors affecting oncology care providers' attitudes towards delay in treatment for older adults with cancer. Eligible participants were recruited by email sent through professional organizations' listservs, email blasts, and social media. Change in provider attitude over time was analyzed by comparing responses from the 2020 and 2021 surveys. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and chi-squares. RESULTS: In 2020, 17.5% of respondents were strongly considering/considering postponing cancer treatment for younger patients (age 30 and below), while 46.2% were considering delaying treatment for patients aged >85. These responses were in stark contrast to the results of the 2021 survey, where only 1.4% of respondents strongly considered postponing treatment for younger patients, and 13.5% for patients aged >85. DISCUSSION: All recommendations to postpone treatment for older adults with cancer must be made after mutual discussion with the patient. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, oncology care providers had to consider multiple factors while treating patients, frequently making most decisions without appropriate institutional support.

Differences in urban and suburban/rural settings regarding care provision and barriers of cancer care for older adults during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Care for older adults with cancer became more challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in urban hotspots. This study examined the potential differences in healthcare providers' provision of as well as barriers to cancer care for older adults with cancer between urban and suburban/rural settings. METHODS: Members of the Advocacy Committee of the Cancer and Aging Research Group, with the Association of Community Cancer Centers, surveyed multidisciplinary healthcare providers responsible for the direct care of patients with cancer. Respondents were recruited through organizational listservs, email blasts, and social media messages. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used. RESULTS: Complete data was available from 271 respondents (urban (n = 144), suburban/rural (n = 127)). Most respondents were social workers (42, 44%) or medical doctors/advanced practice providers (34, 13%) in urban and suburban/rural settings, respectively. Twenty-four percent and 32.4% of urban-based providers reported "strongly considering" treatment delays among adults aged 76-85 and > 85, respectively, compared to 13% and 15.4% of suburban/rural providers (Ps = 0.048, 0.013). More urban-based providers reported they were inclined to prioritize treatment for younger adults over older adults than suburban/rural providers (10.4% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.04) during the pandemic. The top concerns reported were similar between the groups and related to patient safety, treatment delays, personal safety, and healthcare provider mental health. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate location-based differences in providers' attitudes regarding care provision for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Geriatric Assessment-Driven Intervention (GAIN) on Chemotherapy-Related Toxic Effects in Older Adults With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Although geriatric assessment-driven intervention improves patient-centered outcomes, its influence on chemotherapy-related toxic effects remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether specific geriatric assessment-driven intervention (GAIN) can reduce chemotherapy-related toxic effects in older adults with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial enrolled 613 participants from a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center between 2015 and 2019. Patients were 65 years and older with a solid malignant neoplasm, were starting a new chemotherapy regimen, and completed a geriatric assessment. Patients were followed up until chemotherapy completion or 6 months after initiation, whichever occurred first. Data analysis was done by intention-to-treat principle. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to either the GAIN (intervention) or standard of care (SOC) arm. In the GAIN arm, a geriatrics-trained multidisciplinary team composed of an oncologist, nurse practitioner, social worker, physical/occupation therapist, nutritionist, and pharmacist reviewed geriatric assessment results and implemented interventions based on prespecified thresholds built into the geriatric assessment's domains. In the SOC arm, geriatric assessment results were sent to treating oncologists for consideration. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was incidence of grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects (graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). Secondary outcomes included advance directive completion, emergency department visits, unplanned hospitalizations, average length of stay, unplanned hospital readmissions, chemotherapy dose modifications, and early discontinuation. Overall survival analysis was performed up to 12 months after chemotherapy initiation. RESULTS: Among the 605 eligible participants for analysis, median (range) age was 71 (65-91) years, 357 (59.0%) were women, and 432 (71.4%) had stage IV disease. Cancer types included gastrointestinal (202 [33.4%]), breast (136 [22.5%]), lung (97 [16.0%]), genitourinary (91 [15.0%]), gynecologic (54 [8.9%]), and other (25 [4.1%]). Incidence of grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects was 50.5% (95% CI, 45.6% to 55.4%) in the GAIN arm and 60.6% (95% CI, 53.9% to 67.3%) in the SOC arm, resulting in a significant 10.1% reduction (95% CI, -1.5 to -18.2%; P = .02). A significant absolute increase in advance directive completion of 28.4% with GAIN vs 13.3% with SOC (P < .001) was observed. No significant differences were observed in emergency department visits, unplanned hospitalizations, average length of stay, unplanned readmissions, chemotherapy dose modifications or discontinuations, or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, integration of multidisciplinary GAIN significantly reduced grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects in older adults with cancer. Implementation of GAIN into oncology clinical practice should be considered among older adults receiving chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517034.