Prospective Comparison of Geriatric Assessment and Provider's Assessment of Older Adults With Metastatic Breast Cancer in the Community. (10th February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Seedor, Rino S; Meeker, Caitlin R; Lewis, Bianca; Handorf, Elizabeth A; Filchner, Kelly A; Varadarajan, Ramya; Hensold, Jack; Padmanabhan, Aruna; Negin, Benjamin; Blankstein, Kenneth; Chawla, Neha R; Song, Wei (Frank); Epstein, Jessica; Winn, Jennifer; Goldstein, Lori J; Dotan, Efrat
• Is Part Of: Oncologist. Volume 27:Number 2(2022)
• Page Start: e133
• Page End: e141
• Publication Date: 2022-02-10
• Subjects: breast cancer -- clinical oncology -- elderly -- geriatric assessment -- geriatrics; Oncology -- Periodicals; Tumors -- Periodicals; Cancérologie -- Périodiques; Tumeurs -- Périodiques; Oncology; Tumors; Neoplasms; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyab032
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1083-7159

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended for evaluating fitness of an older adult with cancer. Our objective was to prospectively evaluate the gaps that exist in the assessment of older adults with metastatic breast cancer (OA-MBC) in community practices (CP). Methods: Self-administered GA was compared to provider's assessment (PA) of patients living with MBC aged ≥65 years treated in CP Providers were blinded to the GA results until PA was completed. McNemar's test was used to detect differences between PA and GA. Results: One hundred patients were enrolled across 9 CP (median age 73.9). Geriatric assessment detected a total of 356 abnormalities in 96 patients; of which, 223 required interventions. African American and widowed/single patients were more likely to have abnormalities identified by GA. On average, across 100 patients, PA did not detect 25.5% of GA-detected abnormalities, mostly in functional status, social support, nutrition, and cognition. These differences were less pronounced among providers with more clinical experience. Patients with abnormal Timed Up and Go tests more likely had additional abnormalities in other domains, and more abnormalities that were not identified by PA. Providers were "surprised" by GA results in 33% of cases, mainly with cognitive or social support findings, and reported plans for management change for 39% of patients based on GA findings. Conclusions: Including a GA in the care of OA-MBC in CP is beneficial for the detection of multiple abnormalities not detected by routine PA. Abstract : Fitness assessment is recommended for older adults with cancer. This article evaluates the gaps that exist in the assessment of older adults with metastatic breast cancer in community practices.