Disability level and use of long-term care services in Norway: a nation-wide registry study.

AIMS: In Norway, disability level is an important criterion when deciding the type and level of long-term care services. Each care recipient can be scored on 20 different disability level measures. Our aims were to investigate completeness in disability level information in the Norwegian Registry of Primary Health Care (NRPHC), to group disability level measures into meaningful groups, and to study the relationship between grouped disability scores and the type of services received. METHODS: We retrieved information on type of care and disability level from the NRPHC on individuals who received long-term care services in 2022. Type of care was divided into hierarchical and mutually exclusive groups, with long-term institutional care as the most complex service group. We used principal components analysis to summarise and visualise the information in the 20 different disability level measures, and to create grouped scores. RESULTS: A total of 386,697 persons aged 0-104 years were registered as recipients of long-term care services in Norway on 31 December 2022. Information on disability measures were of high completeness (72.4 % of the population were registered with all 20 measures) but was lower for younger age groups in which the number of recipients was lower. Principal components analyses identified two groups of measures, which we termed physical and cognitive functioning. Physical and cognitive functioning were poorest for individuals receiving the most complex and extensive services. CONCLUSIONS: NRPHC disability data are reasonably complete, the 20 measures readily fall into two distinct categories, and seem to reflect real life differences in disability.

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.

Study protocol for two stepped-wedge interventional trials evaluating the effects of holistic information technology-based patient-oriented management in older multimorbid patients with cancer: The GERONTE trials.

INTRODUCTION: Current hospital-based care pathways are generally single-disease centred. As a result, coexisting morbidities are often suboptimally evaluated and managed, a deficiency becoming increasingly apparent among older patients who exhibit heterogeneity in health status, functional abilities, frailty, and other geriatric impairments. To address this issue, our study aims to assess a newly developed patient-centred care pathway for older patients with multimorbidity and cancer. The new care pathway was based on currently available evidence and co-designed by end-users including health care professionals, patients, and informal caregivers. Within this care pathway, all healthcare professionals involved in the care of older patients with multimorbidity and cancer will form a Health Professional Consortium (HPC). The role of the HPC will be to centralise oncologic and non-oncologic treatment recommendations in accordance with the patient's priorities. Moreover, an Advanced Practice Nurse will act as case-manager by being the primary point of contact for the patient, thus improving coordination between specialists, and by organising and leading the consortium. Patient monitoring and the HPC collaboration will be facilitated by digital communication tools designed specifically for this purpose, with the added benefit of being customisable for each patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GERONTE study is a prospective international, multicentric study consisting of two stepped-wedge trials performed at 16 clinical sites across three European countries. Each trial will include 720 patients aged 70 years and over with a new or progressive cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate) and at least one moderate or severe multimorbidity. The patients in the intervention group will receive the new care pathway whereas patients in the control group will receive usual oncologic care. DISCUSSION: GERONTE will evaluate whether this kind of holistic, patient-oriented healthcare management can improve quality of life (primary outcome) and other valuable endpoints in older patients with multimorbidity and cancer. An ancillary study will assess in depth the socio-economic impact of the intervention and deliver concrete implementation guidelines for the GERONTE intervention care pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: FRONE: NCT05720910 TWOBE: NCT05423808.

How to incorporate chronic health conditions in oncologic decision-making and care for older patients with cancer? A survey among healthcare professionals.

PURPOSE: A substantial proportion of patients with cancer are older and experience multimorbidity. As the population is ageing, the management of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer will represent a significant challenge to current clinical practice. METHODS: This study aimed to (1) identify which chronic health conditions may cause change in oncologic decision-making and care in older patients and (2) provide guidance on how to incorporate these in decision-making and care provision of older patients with cancer. Based on a scoping literature review, an initial list of prevalent morbidities was developed. A subsequent survey among healthcare providers involved in the care for older patients with cancer assessed which chronic health conditions were relevant and why. RESULTS: A list of 53 chronic health conditions was developed, of which 34 were considered likely or very likely to influence decision-making or care according to the 39 healthcare professionals who responded. These conditions were further categorized into five patient profiles. From these conditions, five patient profiles were developed, namely, (1) a somatic profile consisting of cardiovascular, metabolic, and pulmonary disease, (2) a functional profile, including conditions that cause disability, dependency or a high caregiver burden, (3) a psychosocial profile, including cognitive impairment, (4) a nutritional profile also including digestive system diseases, and finally, (5) a concurrent cancer profile. All profiles were considered likely to impact decision-making with differences between treatment modalities. The impact on the care trajectory was generally considered less significant, except for patients with care dependency and psychosocial health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic health conditions have various ways of influencing oncologic decision-making and the care trajectory in older adults with cancer. Understanding why specific chronic health conditions may impact the oncologic care trajectory can aid clinicians in the management of older patients with multimorbidity, including cancer.

The association between age and long-term quality of life after curative treatment for prostate cancer: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the associations between age at radical prostate cancer treatment and long-term global quality of life (QoL), physical function (PF), and treatment-related side effects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single-center, cross-sectional study included men treated for localized prostate cancer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in 2014-2018. Global QoL and PF were assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment in Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30), side effects by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). Adjusted linear regression models were estimated to assess associations between age (continuous variable) at treatment and outcomes. QLQ-C30 scores were compared to normative data after dividing the cohort in two groups, <70 years and ≥70 years at treatment. RESULTS: Of 654 men included, 516 (79%) had undergone RARP, and 138 (21%) had undergone EBRT combined with androgen deprivation therapy for 93%. Mean time since treatment was 57 months. Median age at treatment was 68 (min-max 44-84) years. We found no statistically significant independent association between age at treatment and global QoL, PF or side effects, except for sexual function (regression coefficient [RC] -0.77; p < 0.001) and hormonal/vitality (RC 0.30; p = 0.006) function. Mean QLQ-C30 scores were slightly poorer than age-adjusted normative scores, for men <70 years (n = 411) as well as for men ≥70 years (n = 243) at treatment, but the differences were not beyond clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of prostate cancer survivors, age at treatment had little impact on long-term QoL and function. Due to the cross-sectional design, short term impact or variation over time cannot be ruled out.

Implementation of advance care planning in the routine care for acutely admitted patients in geriatric units: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acutely ill and frail older adults and their next of kin are often poorly involved in treatment and care decisions. This may lead to either over- or undertreatment and unnecessary burdens. The aim of this project is to improve user involvement and health services for frail older adults living at home, and their relatives, by implementing advance care planning (ACP) in selected hospital wards, and to evaluate the clinical and the implementation interventions. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized trial with 12 hospital units. The intervention arm receives implementation support for 18 months; control units receive the same support afterwards. The ACP intervention consists of 1. Clinical intervention: ACP; 2. Implementation interventions: Implementation team, ACP coordinator, network meetings, training and supervision for health care personnel, documentation tools and other resources, and fidelity measurements with tailored feedback; 3. Implementation strategies: leadership commitment, whole ward approach and responsive evaluation. Fidelity will be measured three times in the intervention arm and twice in the control arm. Here, the primary outcome is the difference in fidelity changes between the arms. We will also include 420 geriatric patients with one close relative and an attending clinician in a triadic sub-study. Here, the primary outcomes are quality of communication and decision-making when approaching the end of life as perceived by patients and next of kin, and congruence between the patient's preferences for information and involvement and the clinician's perceptions of the same. For patients we will also collect clinical data and health register data. Additionally, all clinical staff in both arms will be invited to answer a questionnaire before and during the implementation period. To explore barriers and facilitators and further explore the significance of ACP, qualitative interviews will be performed in the intervention units with patients, next of kin, health care personnel and implementation teams, and with other stakeholders up to national level. Lastly, we will evaluate resource utilization, costs and health outcomes in a cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: The project may contribute to improved implementation of ACP as well as valuable knowledge and methodological developments in the scientific fields of ACP, health service research and implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05681585. Registered 03.01.23.

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative.

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

Hospital use and cancer treatment by age and socioeconomic status in the last year of life: A Norwegian population-based study of patients dying of cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is the leading cause of death in Norway. In this nationwide study we describe the number and causes of hospital admissions and treatment in the final year of life for patients who died of cancer, as well as the associations to age and socioeconomic status (SES). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From nationwide registries covering 2010-2014, we identified all patients who were diagnosed with cancer 12-60 months before death and had cancer as their reported cause of death. We examined the number of overnight hospital stays, causes of admission, and treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical procedures) offered during the last year of life by individual (age, sex, comorbidity), cancer (type, stage, months since diagnosis), and socioeconomic variables (co-residential status, income, education). RESULTS: The analytical sample included 17,669 patients; 8,247 (47%) were female, mean age was 71.7 years (standard deviation 13.7). At diagnosis, 31% had metastatic disease, while 29% had an intermediate or high comorbidity burden. Altogether, 94% were hospitalized during their final year, 82% at least twice, and 33% six times or more. Patients spent a median of 23 days in hospital (interquartile range 11-41), and altogether 38% died there. Younger age, bladder and ovarian cancer, not living alone, and higher income were associated with having ≥6 hospitalizations. Cancer-related diagnoses were the main causes of hospitalizations (65%), followed by infections (11%). Around 51% had ≥1 chemotherapy episode, with large variations according to patient age and SES; patients who were younger, did not live alone, had high education, and high income received more chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was received by 15% and declined with age, and the variation according to SES characteristics was minor. Of the 12,940 patients with a cancer type where surgery is a main treatment modality, only 835 (6%) underwent surgical procedures for their primary tumor in the last year of life. DISCUSSION: Most patients who die of cancer are hospitalized multiple times during the last year of life. Hospitalizations and treatment decline with advancing age. Living alone and having low income is associated with fewer hospitalizations and less chemotherapy treatment. Whether this indicates over- or undertreatment across various groups warrants further exploration.

Self-reported electronic symptom monitoring in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer: Development of a core dataset based on expert consensus, literature review, and quality of life questionnaires.

INTRODUCTION: In cancer care, symptom monitoring during treatment results in improved clinical outcomes such as improved quality of life, longer survival, and fewer hospital admissions. However, as the majority of patients with cancer are older and have multimorbidity, they may benefit from monitoring of additional symptoms. The aim of this study was to identify a core set of symptoms to monitor in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer, including symptoms caused by treatment side effects, destabilization of comorbidities, and functional decline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a scoping literature search, 17 quality of life questionnaires were used to select 53 possible symptoms to monitor. An expert panel of cancer and geriatrics specialists was asked to participate in multiple online surveys to indicate whether these symptoms were not relevant to monitor, only relevant to monitor in a specific patient group, or relevant to monitor in all patients. In a subsequent round the list was reduced and the panel indicated how frequently these symptoms should be monitored during cancer treatment and after cancer treatment completion. Finally, a digital consensus meeting was organised to decide when symptoms had to trigger a recommendation to the patient to get in touch with their medical team. RESULTS: In total, 30 healthcare professionals participated in the online surveys. After two rounds, a dataset of 19 symptoms related to cancer, cancer treatment, functional decline, and destabilization of comorbidities was agreed upon for monitoring. Five symptoms were selected for daily monitoring during treatment, seven for weekly, and seven for monthly. After treatment completion, the panel agreed upon less frequent reporting. Additionally, nine symptoms to be monitored only in patients with specific cancer types or treatment types were chosen, such as "cough up blood" in lung cancer. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to identify a core set of symptoms to monitor in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer. Future research is needed to investigate whether the monitoring of these symptoms is feasible and improves clinical outcomes in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer.

Geriatric assessment for older people with cancer: policy recommendations.

Most cancers occur in older people and the burden in this age group is increasing. Over the past two decades the evidence on how best to treat this population has increased rapidly. However, implementation of new best practices has been slow and needs involvement of policymakers. This perspective paper explains why older people with cancer have different needs than the wider population. An overview is given of the recommended approach for older people with cancer and its benefits on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In older patients, the geriatric assessment (GA) is the gold standard to measure level of fitness and to determine treatment tolerability. The GA, with multiple domains of physical health, functional status, psychological health and socio-environmental factors, prevents initiation of inappropriate oncologic treatment and recommends geriatric interventions to optimize the patient's general health and thus resilience for receiving treatments. Multiple studies have proven its benefits such as reduced toxicity, better quality of life, better patient-centred communication and lower healthcare use. Although GA might require investment of time and resources, this is relatively small compared to the improved outcomes, possible cost-savings and compared to the large cost of oncologic treatments as a whole.

Challenges of caring for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer.

INTRODUCTION: As the population is ageing, the number of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer continues to increase. To improve care for these patients, the European Union-funded project "Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological evaluation based on IC Technology" (GERONTE) was initiated to develop a new, patient-centred, holistic care pathway. The aim of this paper is to analyse what challenges are encountered in everyday clinical practice according to patients, their informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals as a starting point for the development of the care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An expert panel of cancer and geriatrics specialists participated in an online survey to answer what challenges they experience in caring for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer and what treatment outcomes could be improved. Furthermore, in-depth interviews with older patients and their informal caregivers were organised to assess what challenges they experience. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals (n = 36) most frequently mentioned the challenge of choosing the best treatment in light of the lack of evidence in this population and how to handle interactions between the (cancer) treatment and multimorbidities. Twelve patients and caregivers participated, and they most frequently mentioned challenges related to treatment outcomes, such as how to deal with symptoms of disease or treatment and how to maintain quality of life. From the challenges, five main themes emerged that should be taken into account when developing a new care pathway for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer. Two themes focus on decision making aspects such as personalized treatment recommendations and inclusion of non-oncologic information, two focus on patient support and monitoring to maintain quality of life and functioning, and one overarching theme addresses care coordination to prevent fragmentation of care. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, the management of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer is complex and although progress has been made on improving aspects of their care, challenges remain and patients are at risk of receiving inappropriate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful treatment. A patient-centred care pathway that integrates solutions to the five main themes and that moves away from a single-disease centred approach is needed.

Predicting Functional Recovery and Quality of Life in Older Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Real-World Data From the International GOSAFE Study.

PURPOSE: The GOSAFE study evaluates risk factors for failing to achieve good quality of life (QoL) and functional recovery (FR) in older patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients age 70 years and older undergoing major elective colorectal surgery were prospectively enrolled. Frailty assessment was performed and outcomes, including QoL (EQ-5D-3L) recorded (3/6 months postoperatively). Postoperative FR was defined as a combination of Activity of Daily Living ≥5 + Timed Up & Go test <20 seconds + MiniCog >2. RESULTS: Prospective complete data were available for 625/646 consecutive patients (96.9%; 435 colon and 190 rectal cancer), 52.6% men, and median age was 79.0 years (IQR, 74.6-82.9 years). Surgery was minimally invasive in 73% of patients (321/435 colon; 135/190 rectum). At 3-6 months, 68.9%-70.3% patients experienced equal/better QoL (72.8%-72.9% colon, 60.1%-63.9% rectal cancer). At logistic regression analysis, preoperative Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool ≥2 (3-month odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.73; P = .034, 6-month OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.75; P = .027) and postoperative complications (3-month OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.42; P = .008, 6-month OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.68; P = .02) are associated with decreased QoL after colectomy. Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2 is a strong predictor of postoperative QoL decline in the rectal cancer subgroup (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.45 to 9.92; P = .006). FR was reported by 254/323 (78.6%) patients with colon and 94/133 (70.6%) with rectal cancer. Charlson Age Comorbidity Index ≥7 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.26 to 5.32; P = .009), ECOG ≥2 (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.36 to 7.20; P = .007 colon; OR, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 14.63; P = .009 rectal surgery), severe complications (OR, 17.33; 95% CI, 7.30 to 40.8; P < .001), fTRST ≥2 (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.40 to 5.25; P = .003), and palliative surgery (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.29 to 13.07; P = .017) are risk factors for not achieving FR. CONCLUSION: The majority of older patients experience good QoL and stay independent after colorectal cancer surgery. Predictors for failing to achieve these essential outcomes are now defined to guide patients' and families' preoperative counseling.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing advance care planning in naïve contexts - where to look when plowing new terrain?

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a way of applying modern medicine to the principle of patient autonomy and ensuring that patients receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences. Robust evidence supports the benefits of ACP, but it remains an underutilized resource in most countries. This paper goes from the naïve point of view, and seeks to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementation in unfamiliarized contexts and in a whole system approach involving the clinical, institutional and policy level to improve the implementation of ACP. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were chosen to enable an explorative, flexible design. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 health care professionals and chief physicians in hospitals and in municipalities. The thematic analysis was done following Braun and Clarke's strategy for thematic analysis. RESULTS: The main reported barriers were the lack of time and space, a lack of culture and leadership legitimizing ACP, lack of common communication systems, and unclear responsibility about who should initiate, resulting in missed opportunities and overtreatment. Policy development, public and professional education, and standardization of documentation were reported as key to facilitate ACP and build trust across the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Progressively changing the education of health professionals and the clinical culture are major efforts that need to be tackled to implement ACP in unfamiliarized contexts, particularly in contexts where patient's wishes are not legally binding. This will need to be tackled through rectifying the misconception that ACP is only about death, and providing practical training for health professionals, as well as developing policies and legislation on how to include patients and caregivers in the planning of care.

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.

Intrinsic capacity and resilience: Taking frailty to the next level.

In addition to frailty, two novel concepts have been introduced in the field of geriatrics to capture the heterogeneous ageing process: the first is intrinsic capacity, which uses a community-based, holistic approach and is propagated by the World Health Organization (WHO); and the second is resilience, which provides a more dynamic perspective on the individual's reserves, injury and recovery. While both concepts are linked to frailty, with all three focusing on reserves in relation to ageing, each approaches this issue from a different point of view. In this paper, we will compare and contrast these three concepts - frailty, intrinsic capacity and resilience - and assess their relevance to future geriatric oncology research as well as daily clinical practice.

Geriatric impairments are associated with reduced quality of life and physical function in older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy - A prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Quality of life (QoL) and function are important outcomes for older adults with cancer. We aimed to assess differences in trends in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during radiotherapy (RT) between (1) groups with curative or palliative treatment intent and (2) groups defined according to the number of geriatric impairments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study including patients aged ≥65 years receiving curative or palliative RT was conducted. Geriatric assessment (GA) was performed before RT, and cut-offs for impairments within each domain were defined. Patients were grouped according to the number of geriatric impairments: 0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4. Our primary outcomes, global QoL and physical function (PF), were assessed by The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC) (QLQ-C30) at baseline, RT completion, and two, eight, and sixteen weeks later. Differences in trends in outcomes between the groups were assessed by linear mixed models. RESULTS: 301 patients were enrolled, mean age was 73.6 years, 53.8% received curative RT. Patients receiving palliative RT reported significantly worse global QoL and PF compared to the curative group. The prevalence of 0, 1, 2, 3 and ≥ 4 geriatric impairments was 16.6%, 22.7%, 16.9%, 16.3% and 27.5%, respectively. Global QoL and PF gradually decreased with an increasing number of impairments. These group differences remained stable from baseline throughout follow-up without any clinically significant changes for any of the outcomes. DISCUSSION: Increasing number of geriatric impairments had a profound negative impact on global QoL and PF, but no further decline was observed for any group or outcome, indicating that RT was mainly well tolerated. Thus, geriatric impairments per se should not be reasons for withholding RT. GA is key to identifying vulnerable patients in need of supportive measures, which may have the potential to improve treatment tolerance. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03071640).