The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment for optimal treatment of older patients with cancer: A randomized parallel-group clinical trial

on behalf of the Academy of Geriatric Cancer Research (AgeCare)

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Objectives: The aim was to investigate if oncologic treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and a multidisciplinary team conference in patients with G8 ≤ 14 was better than treatment decision based on standard assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02671994. Materials and Methods: From January 2016 to June 2018, 96 patients with cancer, aged ≥70 years, were included. Patients were randomized to treatment decision based on the oncologist's clinical judgement (control) or based on screening with G8. If G8 > 14 treatment decision was made as in the control group and if G8 ≤ 14, patients were referred to CGA including intervention as needed and treatment decision after a multidisciplinary team conference (MDT). Results: The study was closed early. 47 patients were randomized to the control group and 49 to the intervention group; 28 had a G8 ≤ 14, 24 of whom attended CGA. In the intervention group 48% completed treatment as planned compared to 54% in the control group (p = .208). Thirty-eight percent experienced grade 3–4 toxicity in the control group compared with only 20% in the intervention group (p = .055). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 months in the control group and 19.1 months in the intervention group (p = .911). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months in the control group and 7.8 months for the intervention group (p = .838). Conclusion: Treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by CGA had no impact on completion rate of planned oncologic treatment, OS or PFS, but resulted in a borderline significant lower incidence of grade 3–4 toxicity.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Geriatric Oncology
ISSN1879-4068
DOI
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 3. jul. 2019

Fingeraftryk

Geriatric Assessment
Clinical Trials
Control Groups
Neoplasms
Disease-Free Survival
Incidence

Bibliografisk note

Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Citer dette

@article{4d3e6265aa754c24b7b8b312f528e684,
title = "The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment for optimal treatment of older patients with cancer: A randomized parallel-group clinical trial",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim was to investigate if oncologic treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and a multidisciplinary team conference in patients with G8 ≤ 14 was better than treatment decision based on standard assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02671994. Materials and Methods: From January 2016 to June 2018, 96 patients with cancer, aged ≥70 years, were included. Patients were randomized to treatment decision based on the oncologist's clinical judgement (control) or based on screening with G8. If G8 > 14 treatment decision was made as in the control group and if G8 ≤ 14, patients were referred to CGA including intervention as needed and treatment decision after a multidisciplinary team conference (MDT). Results: The study was closed early. 47 patients were randomized to the control group and 49 to the intervention group; 28 had a G8 ≤ 14, 24 of whom attended CGA. In the intervention group 48{\%} completed treatment as planned compared to 54{\%} in the control group (p = .208). Thirty-eight percent experienced grade 3–4 toxicity in the control group compared with only 20{\%} in the intervention group (p = .055). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 months in the control group and 19.1 months in the intervention group (p = .911). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months in the control group and 7.8 months for the intervention group (p = .838). Conclusion: Treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by CGA had no impact on completion rate of planned oncologic treatment, OS or PFS, but resulted in a borderline significant lower incidence of grade 3–4 toxicity.",
keywords = "Cancer, Comprehensive geriatric assessment, Gynecological cancer, Lung cancer, Older patient, Randomized controlled trial, Treatment decision, Urological cancer",
author = "Sambavy Nadaraja and Matzen, {Lars Erik} and J{\o}rgensen, {Trine Lembrecht} and Lars Dysager and Knudsen, {Anja {\O}r} and Jeppesen, {Stefan Starup} and S{\"o}ren M{\"o}ller and J{\o}rn Herrstedt and {on behalf of the Academy of Geriatric Cancer Research (AgeCare)}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.jgo.2019.06.019",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Geriatric Oncology",
issn = "1879-4068",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment for optimal treatment of older patients with cancer : A randomized parallel-group clinical trial. / on behalf of the Academy of Geriatric Cancer Research (AgeCare).

I: Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 03.07.2019.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment for optimal treatment of older patients with cancer

T2 - A randomized parallel-group clinical trial

AU - Nadaraja, Sambavy

AU - Matzen, Lars Erik

AU - Jørgensen, Trine Lembrecht

AU - Dysager, Lars

AU - Knudsen, Anja Ør

AU - Jeppesen, Stefan Starup

AU - Möller, Sören

AU - Herrstedt, Jørn

AU - on behalf of the Academy of Geriatric Cancer Research (AgeCare)

N1 - Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

PY - 2019/7/3

Y1 - 2019/7/3

N2 - Objectives: The aim was to investigate if oncologic treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and a multidisciplinary team conference in patients with G8 ≤ 14 was better than treatment decision based on standard assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02671994. Materials and Methods: From January 2016 to June 2018, 96 patients with cancer, aged ≥70 years, were included. Patients were randomized to treatment decision based on the oncologist's clinical judgement (control) or based on screening with G8. If G8 > 14 treatment decision was made as in the control group and if G8 ≤ 14, patients were referred to CGA including intervention as needed and treatment decision after a multidisciplinary team conference (MDT). Results: The study was closed early. 47 patients were randomized to the control group and 49 to the intervention group; 28 had a G8 ≤ 14, 24 of whom attended CGA. In the intervention group 48% completed treatment as planned compared to 54% in the control group (p = .208). Thirty-eight percent experienced grade 3–4 toxicity in the control group compared with only 20% in the intervention group (p = .055). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 months in the control group and 19.1 months in the intervention group (p = .911). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months in the control group and 7.8 months for the intervention group (p = .838). Conclusion: Treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by CGA had no impact on completion rate of planned oncologic treatment, OS or PFS, but resulted in a borderline significant lower incidence of grade 3–4 toxicity.

AB - Objectives: The aim was to investigate if oncologic treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and a multidisciplinary team conference in patients with G8 ≤ 14 was better than treatment decision based on standard assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02671994. Materials and Methods: From January 2016 to June 2018, 96 patients with cancer, aged ≥70 years, were included. Patients were randomized to treatment decision based on the oncologist's clinical judgement (control) or based on screening with G8. If G8 > 14 treatment decision was made as in the control group and if G8 ≤ 14, patients were referred to CGA including intervention as needed and treatment decision after a multidisciplinary team conference (MDT). Results: The study was closed early. 47 patients were randomized to the control group and 49 to the intervention group; 28 had a G8 ≤ 14, 24 of whom attended CGA. In the intervention group 48% completed treatment as planned compared to 54% in the control group (p = .208). Thirty-eight percent experienced grade 3–4 toxicity in the control group compared with only 20% in the intervention group (p = .055). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 months in the control group and 19.1 months in the intervention group (p = .911). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months in the control group and 7.8 months for the intervention group (p = .838). Conclusion: Treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by CGA had no impact on completion rate of planned oncologic treatment, OS or PFS, but resulted in a borderline significant lower incidence of grade 3–4 toxicity.

KW - Cancer

KW - Comprehensive geriatric assessment

KW - Gynecological cancer

KW - Lung cancer

KW - Older patient

KW - Randomized controlled trial

KW - Treatment decision

KW - Urological cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068206624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.06.019

DO - 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.06.019

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31279749

AN - SCOPUS:85068206624

JO - Journal of Geriatric Oncology

JF - Journal of Geriatric Oncology

SN - 1879-4068

ER -