Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of race and older age compounds existing health disparities experienced by historically marginalised communities. Therefore, racialised older adults with cancer are more disadvantaged in their access to cancer clinical trials compared with age-matched counterparts. To determine what has already been published in this area, the rapid scoping review question are: what are the barriers, facilitators and potential solutions for enhancing access to cancer clinical trials among racialised older adults? METHODS: We will use a rapid scoping review methodology in which we follow the six-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley, including a systematic search of the literature with abstract and full-text screening to be conducted by two independent reviewers, data abstraction by one reviewer and verification by a second reviewer using an Excel data abstraction sheet. Articles focusing on persons aged 18 and over who identify as a racialised person with cancer, that describe therapies/therapeutic interventions/prevention/outcomes related to barriers, facilitators and solutions to enhancing access to and equity in cancer clinical trials will be eligible for inclusion in this rapid scoping review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the scoping review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.

Frailty assessment tools for use by surgeons when evaluating older adults prior to surgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite growing evidence, uncertainty persists about which frailty assessment tools are best suited for routine perioperative care. We aim to understand which frailty assessment tools perform well and are feasible to implement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a registered protocol following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA), we will conduct a scoping review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Guide for Scoping Reviews and reported using PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations. We will develop a comprehensive search strategy with information specialists using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist, and implement this across relevant databases from 2005 to 13 October 2021 and updated prior to final review publication. We will include all studies evaluating a frailty assessment tool preoperatively in patients 65 years or older undergoing intracavitary, non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude tools not assessed in clinical practice, or using laboratory or radiologic values alone. After pilot testing, two reviewers will independently assess information sources for eligibility first by titles and abstracts, then by full-text review. Two reviewers will independently chart data from included full texts using a piloted standardised electronic data charting. In this scoping review process, we will (1) index frailty assessment tools evaluated in the preoperative clinical setting; (2) describe the level of investigation supporting each tool; (3) describe useability of each tool and (4) describe direct comparisons between tools. The results will inform ready application of frailty assessment tools in routine clinical practice by surgeons and other perioperative clinicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethic approval is not required for this secondary data analysis. This scoping review will be published in a peer-review journal. Results will be used to inform an ongoing implementation study focused on geriatric surgery to overcome the current lack of uptake of older adult-oriented care recommendations and ensure broad impact of research findings.

Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study: protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study to evaluate significant new disability after major surgery in older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults prioritise surviving surgery, but also preservation of their functional status and quality of life. Current approaches to measure postoperative recovery, which focus on death, complications and length of hospitalisation, may miss key relevant domains. We propose that postoperative disability is an important patient-centred outcome to measure intermediate-to-long recovery after major surgery in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study is a multicentre cohort study of 2000 older adults (≥65 years) having major non-cardiac surgery. Its objectives are to characterise the incidence, trajectories, risk factors and impact of new significant disability after non-cardiac surgery. Disability is assessed using WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 instrument and participants' level-of-care needs. Disability assessments occur before surgery, and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcome is significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes are (1) significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 1 year after surgery, (2) increased care needs or death at 6 months after surgery and (3) increased care needs or death at 1 year after surgery. We will use multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association of preoperative characteristics and surgery type with outcomes, joint modelling to characterise longitudinal time trends in WHODAS scores over 12 months after surgery, and longitudinal latent class mixture models to identify clusters following similar trajectories of disability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The FIT After Surgery study has received research ethics board approval at all sites. Recruitment began in December 2019 but was placed on hold in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recruitment was gradually restarted in October 2020, with 1-year follow-up expected to finish in 2023. Publication of the primary results is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Falls in older patients with cancer: Nursing and Allied Health Group of International Society of Geriatric Oncology review paper.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major health issue in older adults and are of greater concern among those with cancer due to effects of cancer and its treatments. This paper provides an overview of current literature on fall screening/assessment and interventions and a succinct summary of recommendations for oncology nurses to support this vulnerable population. METHODS: A comprehensive search for literature reviews on falls was conducted in Medline and CINAHL. A comprehensive Internet search was also performed for known guidelines on fall prevention and/or management published within the past 10 years. Search results were compared, contrasted, and summarized to develop clinical recommendations for nurses working with older adults with cancer. Levels of evidence were reported based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. RESULTS: Six guidelines and 17 systematic reviews were identified. Having a history of falls was the most commonly identified fall risk factor/predictor. Multifactorial intervention and exercise appear to be the most commonly recommended. No fall assessment tools were consistently recommended as a reliable means of identifying those at risk for falls. CONCLUSION: Assessing older patients for falls and fall risks is an important first step to identify those who may require further follow-up and intervention. Oncology nurses play a key role in optimizing health outcomes of older adults with cancer - through the use of evidence-based information, such as presented in this publication - and have the capacity to help reduce fall risks during and after treatment through information provision, advocacy, support, and promotion of physical activity.

Understanding transitional care programmes for older adults who experience delayed discharge: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Many hospitalised older adults experience delayed discharges due to increased postacute health and social support needs. Transitional care programmes (TCPs) provide short-term care to these patients to prepare them for transfer to nursing homes or back to the community with supports. There are knowledge gaps related to the development, implementation and evaluation of TCPs. The aims of this scoping review (ScR) are to identify the characteristics of older patients served by TCPs; criteria for transfer, components and services provided by TCPs; and outcomes used to evaluate TCPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study involves six-step ScR and is informed by a collaborative/participatory approach whereby stakeholders engage in the development of the research questions, identification of literature, data abstraction and synthesis; and participation in consultation workshop. The search for scientific literature will be done in the Medline, PsychINFO, Emcare and CINAHL databases; as well, policies and reports that examined models of transitional care and the outcomes used to evaluate them will be reviewed. Records will be selected if they involve community dwelling older adults aged 65 years or older, or indigenous persons 45 years or older; and presented in English, French, Dutch and German languages. Records will be screened, reviewed and abstracted by two independent reviewers. Extracted data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and a narrative analysis, and organised according to Donabedian's model of structure (characteristics of older adults experiencing delayed discharge and served by TCPs), process (TCP components and services) and outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This ScR does not require ethics approval. Dissemination activities include integrated knowledge translation (KT) (consultation with stakeholders throughout the study) and end-of-grant KT strategies (presentations at national and international conferences; and publication in peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal).

The Canadian Frailty Priority Setting Partnership: Research Priorities for Older Adults Living with Frailty.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research priority-setting is intended to democratize research and increase impact. The objectives of the Canadian Frailty Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) were to engage people with lived or clinical experience of frailty, and produce a list of research priorities related to care, support, and treatment of older adults living with frailty. METHODS: The Canadian Frailty PSP was supported by the Canadian Frailty Network, coordinated by researchers in Toronto, Ontario and followed the methods of the James Lind Alliance, which included establishing a Steering Group, inviting partner organizations, gathering questions related to care, support and treatment of older adults living with frailty, processing the data and prioritizing the questions. RESULTS: In the initial survey, 799 submissions were provided by 389 individuals and groups. The 647 questions that were within scope were categorized, merged, and summarized, then checked against research evidence, creating a list of 41 unanswered questions. Prioritization took place in two stages: first, 146 individuals and groups participated in survey and their responses short-listed 22 questions; and second, an in-person workshop was held on September 26, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario where these 22 questions were discussed and ranked. CONCLUSION: Researchers and research funders can use these results to inform their agendas for research on frailty. Strategies are needed for involving those with lived experience of frailty in research.

Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of a Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management for Canadian elders with Cancer-the 5C study: a study protocol for a randomised controlled phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management is recommended for older adults with cancer referred for chemotherapy but no randomised controlled trial has been completed of this intervention in the oncology setting. TRIAL DESIGN: A two-group parallel single blind multi-centre randomised trial with a companion trial-based economic evaluation from both payer and societal perspectives with process evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 350 participants aged 70+, diagnosed with a solid tumour, lymphoma or myeloma, referred for first/second line chemotherapy, who speak English/French, have an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2 will be recruited. All participants will be followed for 12 months. INTERVENTION: Geriatric assessment and management for 6 months. The control group will receive usual oncologic care. All participants will receive a monthly healthy ageing booklet for 6 months. OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical and cost-effectiveness of geriatric assessment and management in optimising outcomes compared with usual oncology care. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be allocated to one of the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. The randomisation will be stratified by centre and treatment intent (palliative vs other). OUTCOME: Quality of life. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (1) Cost-effectiveness, (2) functional status, (3) number of geriatric issues successfully addressed, (4) grades3-5 treatment toxicity, (5) healthcare use, (6) satisfaction, (7) cancer treatment plan modification and (8) overall survival. PLANNED ANALYSIS: For the primary outcome we will use a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 3, 6 and12 months). We will conduct a cost-utility analysis alongside this clinical trial. For secondary outcomes 2-4, we will use a variety of methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our study has been approved by all required REBs. We will disseminate our findings to stakeholders locally, nationally and internationally and by publishing the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03154671.

The assessment, management, and reporting of falls, and the impact of falls on cancer treatment in community-dwelling older patients receiving cancer treatment: Results from a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Falls are major health issues among older adults and even more so in those with cancer due to cancer and its treatment. Delays in cancer treatment caused by fall injuries may have significant implications on disease trajectory and patient outcomes. However, it is not known how falls impact cancer treatment in this population. METHODS: We conducted a convergent-parallel mixed-methods study at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, to examine how falls impact cancer treatment in community-dwelling cancer patients aged ≥ 65, patients' fall reporting, and how falls were assessed and managed in oncology clinics. Data were collected by self-reported survey, chart review, and open-ended interviews. RESULTS: One hundred older adults and fourteen oncologists participated. Falls were not commonly reported by patients to their oncologists (72 of 168 falls [43%] reported to researchers by patients were also reported to oncologists). One of fourteen oncologists routinely assessed falls. In 7% of all 72 reported falls, cancer treatment was impacted (e.g. treatment delay/cessation, dose reduction). Fifty-seven patients perceived their fall as minor incident not worth mentioning (amounted to a total of 72 falls not reported). When a participant reported their fall to the oncologist, actions were taken to assess and manage the fall. Oncologists indicated that the majority of patients were not forthcoming in reporting falls. CONCLUSION: One in twenty who fall appear to lead to change in cancer management. However, falls were not commonly reported by patients nor prioritized by oncologists. Incorporating routine fall assessment in oncology clinic appointments may help identify those at risk for falls so that timely interventions can be triggered.

Circumstances of falls and fear of falling in community-dwelling older adults with cancer: Results from a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Falls are common among older adults and are of added concern among those with cancer due to cancer and its treatments. Knowledge on circumstances surrounding falls and fear of falling is vital for understanding how various factors may precipitate falls and for informing development of effective fall prevention interventions. The aim of the study was to explore circumstances of falls and fear of falling in community-dwelling older adults with cancer. METHOD: A convergent-parallel mixed-methods design was used in this cross-sectional study. Community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥65) with cancer who experienced ≥1 fall in the past year were recruited (N = 100) from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. Data collection included patient self-reported survey and open-ended interview. Descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analyses for qualitative data were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight falls were recalled. Falls occurred mostly indoor, during the day and during normal, non-hazardous activities. Many participants had a fall when not using their walking aid. While some participants (15%) attributed their falls to bad turns or tripping, others blamed themselves for being careless or foolish. Themes from qualitative interviews included 'cognitive appraisal of falls', 'mobility-related fall reasons', and 'opportunity for health-teaching'. CONCLUSION: Circumstances of falls seem to be similar to those in the general geriatric population. Strategies for fall prevention and management used in the general geriatric population may potentially benefit this population as well. Attention may be warranted specifically regarding medication review, health-teaching on fall safety, home safety evaluation, and balance training referral.

Health status, emergency department visits, and oncologists' feedback: An analysis of secondary endpoints from a randomized phase II geriatric assessment trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric Assessment (GA) can help uncover previously unknown health issues and recommend tailored interventions to optimize outcomes; however, no completed randomized trial has examined the impact of GA on utility-based health status, healthcare use, and oncologists' opinions about GA. We examined these secondary outcomes of a randomized phase II trial. METHODS: A planned analysis of secondary outcomes of a two-group parallel single-blind randomized phase II trial of GA (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02222259) recruited patients ≥ age 70, diagnosed with stage II-IV breast/gastrointestinal/genitourinary cancer within six weeks of beginning chemotherapy at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Descriptive analyses using intent-to-treat were conducted for health status (EuroQol EQ-5D-3L) and healthcare utilization (patient self-report). Oncologist opinions were captured via open-ended interviews and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients who met the inclusion criteria were approached; 61 of them consented (64%). For health status, at all time-points, there were no significant differences between the two groups. The number of emergency department and family physician visits was low overall; there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at any time point. All interviewed oncologists (eight of fourteen invited) were satisfied with the intervention, but wanted more straightforward recommendations and earlier GA results. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in terms of relationships between GA and utility-based health status or GA and healthcare use. Underreporting of healthcare use was possible. Oncologists welcome GA feedback and prefer to receive it in pre-treatment decision context. Larger trials with earlier GA are warranted.

Preventing Treatment-Related Functional Decline: Strategies to Maximize Resilience.

The majority of patients with cancer are older adults. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) will help the clinical team identify underlying medical and functional status issues that can affect cancer treatment delivery, cancer prognosis, and treatment tolerability. The CGA, as well as more abbreviated assessments and geriatric screening tools, can aid in the treatment decision-making process through improved individualized prediction of mortality, toxicity of cancer therapy, and postoperative complications and can also help clinicians develop an integrated care plan for the older adult with cancer. In this article, we will review the latest evidence with regard to the use of CGA in oncology. In addition, we will describe the benefits of conducting a CGA and the types of interventions that can be taken by the interprofessional team to improve the treatment outcomes and well-being of older adults.

Role of the geriatrician, primary care practitioner, nurses, and collaboration with oncologists during cancer treatment delivery for older adults: A narrative review of the literature.

Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. With the aging of the population there will be a considerable increase in the number of older adults with cancer. Optimal care of the older adult with cancer requires the involvement of many types of health care providers, including oncologists, nurses, primary care practitioners, and geriatricians. In this narrative review, the literature for evidence relating to the roles of and collaboration between geriatricians, primary care practitioners, nurses, and the oncology team during cancer treatment delivery to older adults was examined. Relevant abstracts were reviewed by all team members. The full texts were reviewed to identify common themes related to roles and collaboration. The results showed that primary care practitioners felt underutilized and that the communication and collaboration between oncologists and primary care practitioners is challenging due to lack of clarity about roles and lack of timely communication/sharing of all relevant information. Furthermore, some of oncology staff, but not all, saw a need for greater collaboration between oncologists and geriatricians. The lack of availability of geriatricians limited the collaboration. Geriatric oncology nurses perceived themselves as having an important role in geriatric assessment and management, but there was no data on their collaboration with these medical specialists. There is a clear need for improvement of collaboration to improve patient outcomes. In conclusion, further research is needed to examine the impact of geriatric oncology team collaboration on the quality of cancer care, in particular, the role of nurses in supporting quality of care during treatment.

Geriatric oncology screening tools for CGA-based interventions: results from a phase II study of geriatric assessment and management for older adults with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Screening tools in geriatric oncology have traditionally been studied for their ability to identify patients who have abnormal domains on a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). However, an alternative outcome of identifying patients who would receive CGA-based interventions could improve selection of patients whose management will be altered by a CGA. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of three geriatric oncology screening tools for their ability to predict for CGA-based interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: G8, Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) and a modified frailty phenotype (mFP) screening tools were collected prospectively for patients enrolled in a phase II trial of geriatric evaluation and management. Interventions were defined as a new clinical diagnosis, change in management of a comorbidity, or referral to an allied health professional. Performance characteristics were calculated for each screening tool based on the outcomes of ≥2 abnormal CGA-domains and ≥1 CGA-based interventions. RESULTS: Discordance between the outcomes was seen in 31.9% of patients. Using the outcome of ≥2 abnormal CGA-domains, the G8 was most sensitive at 0.73 while VES-13 and mFP were both 1.0 specific. Using the outcome of CGA-based interventions the most sensitive tool was still the G8 at 0.64 and the most specific was the mFP at 0.80. DISCUSSION: All screening tests' performance characteristics for the G8, VES-13 and mFP were lower for the outcome of CGA-based interventions than for the traditional outcome of abnormal CGA-domains. Significant discordance between the outcomes highlights the difficulty with trying to predict which patients will truly benefit from a CGA.

Chemotherapy and radiation treatment decision-making experiences of older adults with cancer: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the perspectives of older adults (OAs) with newly-diagnosed cancer on their experiences with cancer treatment decision-making. The objective of this study was to explore the factors that were important for accepting or refusing cancer treatment by older adults undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 20 OAs aged ≥65years with newly diagnosed cancer (<6months) receiving either curative or palliative chemotherapy and/or radiation or who had declined therapy. The COREQ reporting guideline was utilized. RESULTS: The majority of patients accepted the recommended cancer treatment. Most OAs followed their oncologist's recommendation, but spoke of making their own decisions and felt confident about their decisions. Second opinions were not commonly sought. Themes emerged can be divided into two categories: 1) pertaining to cancer treatment decision-making, which includes: "Trust in oncologist", "prolong life", "expected outcomes of treatment", "other people's experience", skeptical about going online" and "assertion of independence", and 2) pertaining to oncologist-patient interactions, which includes "communication". CONCLUSION: Older patients largely followed their cancer specialists' treatment recommendations. Most patients were satisfied with their treatment decision and were confident in their decisions. Seeking of second opinions was rare. More needs to be done to address the communication gaps and support needs of this population.

A randomized phase II trial of geriatric assessment and management for older cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) can identify current health issues and recommend interventions to optimize well-being of older adults, but no randomized trial has yet been completed in oncology. Therefore, a randomized phase 2 trial was conducted. METHODS: A two-group parallel single-blinded randomized phase II trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02222259) enrolled patients aged ≥70 years, diagnosed with stage 2-4 gastrointestinal, genitourinary, or breast cancer within 6 weeks of commencing chemotherapy at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The coprimary feasibility outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients enrolled and retained. The coprimary clinical outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (EORTC QLQ C30) and modification of cancer treatment. Descriptive and regression analyses using intent-to-treat analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-one persons (64%) agreed to participate (31 allocated to intervention arm and 30 to control group). In the control group, more participants died and refused follow-up. The benefit of intervention over control on QOL at 3 months was greater for those who survived 6 months (difference 9.28; 95% CI -10.35 to 28.91) versus those who survived only 3 months (difference 6.55; 95% CI -9.63 to 22.73). CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed that it was feasible to recruit and retain older adults for a GAM study. Those who survived at least 6 months seemed to receive a greater QOL benefit than those who died or withdrew.

Identifying and understanding the health and social care needs of older adults with multiple chronic conditions and their caregivers: a protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: People are living longer; however, they are not necessarily experiencing good health and well-being as they age. Many older adults live with multiple chronic conditions (MCC), and complex health issues, which adversely affect their day-to-day functioning and overall quality of life. As a result, they frequently rely on the support of friend and/or family caregivers. Caregivers of older adults with MCC often face challenges to their own well-being and also require support. Currently, not enough is known about the health and social care needs of older adults with MCC and the needs of their caregivers or how best to identify and meet these needs. This study will examine and synthesise the literature on the needs of older adults with MCC and those of their caregivers, and identify gaps in evidence and directions for further research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature using the updated Arksey and O'Malley framework. The literature will be identified using a multidatabase and grey literature search strategy developed by a health sciences librarian. Papers, reports and other materials addressing the health and social care needs of older adults and their friend/family caregivers will be included. Search results will be screened, independently, by two reviewers, and data will be abstracted from included literature and charted in duplicate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethics approval. We anticipate that study findings will inform novel strategies for identifying and ascertaining the health and social care needs of older adults living with MCC and those of their caregivers. Working with knowledge-user members of our team, we will prepare materials and presentations to disseminate findings to relevant stakeholder and end-user groups at local, national and international levels. We will also publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

The Senior Toronto Oncology Panel (STOP) Study: Research Participation for Older Adults With Cancer and Caregivers.

Background: Patient engagement in research may lead to better-designed studies and improved health outcomes. The objectives of this study were to identify the research priorities of older adults with cancer (OAWCs) and their caregivers and examine how to engage these individuals in research teams and what supports are needed. Methods: We conducted 3 public meetings and 7 focus groups to delineate research priorities and the supports needed to facilitate integration of OAWCs and their caregivers on research teams. Results: A total of 33 older adults and 19 caregivers attended a public meeting and 27 older adults and 17 caregivers participated in a focus group. Most of the OAWCs and their caregivers had never participated in research before. Three themes were identified from the focus groups: (1) motivation to be on a team; (2) ability to make meaningful contributions; and (3) logistical considerations to facilitate engagement. Most participants were motivated to be a research team member and be involved in all steps of research if it could benefit them or future patients and caregivers. OAWCs and their caregivers were highly motivated to improve outcomes. Required logistics included flexibility regarding time and location, accessibility to computer technology, transportation support, materials worded in lay language, and attending/having short training sessions, as well as the presence of peer support. Conclusions: OAWCs and their caregivers are very motivated and willing to participate in research and to be research team members. Logistics and the social aspects of being on a team are important.

Patient engagement in research with older adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. Older adults have been under-represented in clinical cancer research. Around the world there is a push for patient engagement on study teams as it is anticipated to improve study design, recruitment and dissemination of findings. In the current overview we examined the evidence with regard to: 1) the history of patient engagement in research and frameworks developed; 2) impact of patient engagement on patient and research outcomes; 3) use of patient engagement in geriatrics and oncology, 4) recommendations for successful engagement; and 5) gaps in the literature that should be studied further. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted. Articles published in English were searched in Medline with the help of a librarian. RESULTS: Patient engagement has been shown to improve the conduct of studies by making the study design more relevant and feasible, and improving recruitment rates and uptake of research findings by patients. However, the best way to engage patients is not clear yet. Several resources have been developed to support researchers engaging older adults with cancer in research. CONCLUSIONS: While patient engagement in research seems promising to improve study outcomes, little evidence is available thus far in geriatric oncology settings. Several gaps in the literature are identified that should be further studied to determine the value of, and best approaches to, patient engagement with older adults with cancer.