Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy: a cluster-randomised controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) improve outcomes in older patients with cancer treated with surgery or chemotherapy. It is unclear whether GAM may provide better function and quality of life (QoL), or be cost-effective, in a radiotherapy (RT) setting. METHODS: In this Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study, we assessed the impact of a GAM intervention involving specialist and primary health services. It was initiated in-hospital at the start of RT by assessing somatic and mental health, function, and social situation, followed by individually adapted management plans and systematic follow-up in the municipalities until 8 weeks after the end of RT, managed by municipal nurses as patients' care coordinators. Thirty-two municipal/city districts were 1:1 randomised to intervention or conventional care. Patients with cancer ≥ 65 years, referred for RT, were enrolled irrespective of cancer type, treatment intent, and frailty status, and followed the allocation of their residential district. The primary outcome was physical function measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes were overall quality of life (QoL), physical performance, use and costs of health services. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Study registration at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03881137. RESULTS: We included 178 patients, 89 in each group with comparable age (mean 74.1), sex (female 38.2%), and Edmonton Frail Scale scores (mean 3.4 [scale 0-17], scores 0-3 [fit] in 57%). More intervention patients received curative RT (76.4 vs 61.8%), had higher irradiation doses (mean 54.1 vs 45.5 Gy), and longer lasting RT (mean 4.4 vs 3.6 weeks). The primary outcome was completed by 91% (intervention) vs 88% (control) of patients. No significant differences between groups on predefined outcomes were observed. GAM costs represented 3% of health service costs for the intervention group during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this heterogeneous cohort of older patients receiving RT, the majority was fit. We found no impact of the intervention on patient-centred outcomes or the cost of health services. Targeting a more homogeneous group of only pre-frail and frail patients is strongly recommended in future studies needed to clarify the role and organisation of GAM in RT settings.

Edmonton Frail Scale predicts mortality in older patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy-A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Several screening tools are developed to identify frailty in the increasing number of older patients with cancer. Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) performs well in geriatric settings but is less studied in oncology. We aimed to investigate if EFS score (continuous and categorical) predicts survival in patients referred for radiotherapy, and to assess the concurrent validity of EFS compared with a modified geriatric assessment (mGA). METHODS: Prospective observational, single-center study including patients ≥65 years, referred for curative or palliative radiotherapy for confirmed cancer. Patients underwent mGA (assessment of cognition, mobility, falls, comorbidity, polypharmacy, depression, nutrition, and activities of daily living) and screening with EFS prior to radiotherapy. The predictive value of EFS score of two-year overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier plots and compared by log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression model was estimated to adjust the associations for major cancer-related factors. Concurrent validity of EFS in relation to mGA was estimated by Spearman`s correlation coefficient and ordinal regression. Sensitivity and specificity for different cut-offs was assessed. RESULTS: Patients' (n = 301) mean age was 73.6 (SD 6.3) years, 159 (52.8%) were men, 54% received curative-intent treatment, breast cancer (32%) was the most prevalent diagnosis. According to EFS≥6, 101 (33.7%) were classified as frail. EFS score was predictive of OS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.20 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.30)], as was increasing severity assessed by categorical EFS (p<0.001). There was a strong correlation between EFS score and number of geriatric impairments (Spearman`s correlation coefficient 0.77). EFS cut-off ≥6 had a sensitivity of 0.97 and specificity of 0.57 for identifying patients with minimum two geriatric impairments. CONCLUSION: EFS predicts mortality in older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, and it is a quick (<5 minutes) and sensitive screening tool to identify patients who may benefit from a geriatric assessment.