The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a versatile tool for the care of the older person diagnosed with cancer. The purpose of this article is to detail how a CGA can be tailored to Ambulatory Geriatric Oncology Programs (AGOPs) in academic cancer centers and to community oncology practices with varying levels of resources. The Society for International Oncology in Geriatrics (SIOG) recommends CGA as a foundation for treatment planning and decision-making for the older person receiving care for a malignancy. A CGA is often administered by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) composed of professionals who provide geriatric-focused cancer care. CGA can be used as a one-time consult for surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy providers to predict treatment tolerance or as an ongoing part of patient care to manage malignant and non-malignant issues. Administrative support and proactive infrastructure planning to address scheduling, referrals, and provider communication are critical to the effectiveness of the CGA.

No abstract

Introduction: Adults age ≥65y constitute the majority of patients (pts) diagnosed with cancer. There is a gap in knowledge about the safest and most effect cancer treatments for older pts. At The Ohio State University, we have a longitudinal multidisciplinary geriatric clinic for adults ≥ 65 years of age diagnosed with breast cancer (BC). The clinic team consists of a physician, nurse practitioner, dietician, physical therapist, social worker nurse, and pharmacist. We evaluate the unique needs of older pts with breast cancer by completing a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Eligible patients are enrolled into OSU-16153 which is a is prospective cohort study of pts ≥65y with new diagnosis of BC to better understand complex health issues of this population, and to collect data to support future studies. Methods: Forty eight pts have completed the baseline questionnaires including demographics, lifestyle and health history and CGA. Summary statistics were used to describe the baseline characteristics. Results: The median age of patients enrolled in the study was 77 years (range 67-94), the mean BMI was 28, 50% (24/48) were Caucasian and 6% (3/48) were African American. Mobility was assessed mobility with the time get up and go (TGUG), mean 9.8 (SD=6.2) and grip strength, mean of 31. Cognitive limitations were screened with the blessed orientation memory concentration test, mean 3.9 (SD=5.0) and mini-cog, mean 3.6 (SD=1), malnutrition, mean 12.3 (SD=12.2) and depression, mean 1.6 (SD=2.4). Functional limitations were measured with Katz, mean 5.9 (SD=0.2), and Lawson, mean 7.8 (SD=0.8). Disease characteristics included 18% (9/48) Tis, 54% (26/48) T1, 21% (10/48) T2, 2%(1/48) T3, and 4% (2/48) T4 tumors, 65% (31/48) lymph node negative and 81% (39/48) estrogen positive (ER+),17% (8/48) ER negative and 4% (2/48) HER2 positive. Oncotype score was <25 in 19% (9/48) and >25 in 4% (2/48). Twelve percent (6/48) received adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative or ER+ breast cancer with high oncotype with docetaxel/cytoxan and 4% received trastuzumab based therapy and they were able to complete all planned cycles. Two pts received chemotherapy based on results of CGA. Forty-two pts were eligible to receive endocrine therapy (ET); 3 pts with ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) and 2 pts with invasive BC declined, 1 did not follow up after her initial visit. Five pts switched ET due to side effects. The 7 patients with invasive BC who declined or switched ET due to side effects all had an abnormal TGUG, 43% (3/7) had an impaired min-cog and 57% (4/7) had impaired hand grip. Conclusions: The majority of older adults have no functional deficits in ADL/IADL, have adequate mobility and grip strength and did not screen positive for cognitive limitations, depression or, malnutrition. Our data shows that the mobility and cognitive assessment of a CGA may serve as a predictor of toxicity from ET therapy and identify patients who are at risk for side effects and who may benefit from additional interventions. The majority of pts who received adjuvant chemotherapy and ET tolerated well. Our pilot data shows a CGA is feasible and that a CGA helped direct appropriate therapy. Citation Format: Nicole Williams, Julie Stephens, Elizabeth Kress, Erin Frey, Susan Fugett, Paige Erdeljac, Stephanie Yager, Erin Holley, Cari Utendorf, Nikki Ford, Caitln Ubbing, Jeanie Overcash, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, Anne Noonan. Feasibility of comprehensive geriatric assessment in an academic breast oncology clinic [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-16-01.

No abstract

Michele Green received the results of her breast cancer biopsy last week. Before surgery for infiltrating ductal carcinoma to her left breast, Michele was advised to meet with the members of the Senior Adult Oncology Program (SAOP) at the cancer center. A phone call from a nurse explained that the 2-hour visit with the SAOP would include meetings with many providers, such as a physical therapist, a social worker, a dietitian, a pharmacist, a nurse practitioner, and an oncologist to undergo a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Driving to her appointment, Michele wondered why her visit would take so long and why she had to see so many people. At 81 years old, Michele maintains her physical fitness and has never really been sick. She continues to work each week at the university and engages in an active social life. What could a team possibly find? Walking past the many examination rooms, Michele began to feel despair that she was now a "cancer patient."