Geriatric Assessment: A Cornerstone of Personalized Care for Older Adults with Cancer

Abstract

As the global population ages, the incidence of cancer in older adults is rapidly increasing. This demographic shift presents unique challenges due to the inherent heterogeneity of the aging process and the increased prevalence of comorbidities, functional impairments, and psychosocial vulnerabilities. Chronological age alone is a poor predictor of treatment tolerance and survival outcomes. Geriatric assessment (GA), a multidimensional, interdisciplinary diagnostic process, has emerged as a crucial tool for evaluating the overall health status of older adults with cancer, enabling personalized treatment strategies that optimize benefits while minimizing risks. This report provides a comprehensive overview of GA, encompassing its rationale, core components, various methodologies, predictive value, implementation challenges, and future directions. We explore the evolution of GA from its origins in geriatric medicine to its current integration into oncological care. We critically analyze the strengths and limitations of different GA approaches, including comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) and abbreviated screening tools, and discuss their impact on clinical decision-making, treatment adherence, and patient-reported outcomes. Furthermore, we examine the barriers to widespread GA implementation, such as resource constraints, lack of standardized protocols, and limited provider training, and propose strategies to overcome these challenges and foster the broader adoption of GA in oncology practice. Finally, we highlight the future of GA, including the integration of novel technologies, such as artificial intelligence and telehealth, to enhance its efficiency and accessibility, ultimately improving the quality of life and survival outcomes for older adults with cancer.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The rising incidence of cancer among older adults is a global phenomenon demanding a paradigm shift in oncological care. Traditionally, treatment decisions have been primarily based on tumor characteristics and performance status, often neglecting the complex interplay of age-related physiological changes, comorbidities, functional limitations, and psychosocial factors that significantly influence treatment tolerance and outcomes in older patients. Chronological age is a poor surrogate for physiological age and overall health. Two individuals of the same chronological age can exhibit vastly different levels of functional reserve and vulnerability to treatment-related toxicities. This heterogeneity underscores the need for a more nuanced and individualized approach to cancer care in older adults.

Geriatric assessment (GA) has emerged as a critical tool to address this challenge. GA is a multidimensional, interdisciplinary diagnostic process designed to evaluate the medical, functional, cognitive, psychological, and social domains of older adults. It goes beyond traditional oncological assessments by providing a holistic view of the patient’s overall health status and identifying vulnerabilities that may impact treatment outcomes. The information gleaned from GA can inform treatment decisions, optimize supportive care, and improve patient-reported outcomes, ultimately leading to more personalized and effective cancer care.

This report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of GA in the context of cancer care for older adults. We will delve into the rationale behind GA, its core components, the various methodologies employed, its predictive value, the challenges associated with its implementation, and potential future directions. Our goal is to provide experts in the field with a deeper understanding of the critical role GA plays in improving the lives of older adults with cancer.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Rationale for Geriatric Assessment in Oncology

The rationale for incorporating GA into oncological care stems from the limitations of relying solely on chronological age and traditional performance status measures. While tools like the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale are widely used, they often fail to capture the full spectrum of age-related vulnerabilities that can impact treatment outcomes. For instance, an older adult with excellent ECOG performance status may still have significant cognitive impairment or functional limitations that increase their risk of treatment-related complications.

GA offers a more comprehensive and nuanced assessment of an individual’s physiological reserve and vulnerability. By evaluating multiple domains, including:

• Functional status: Assessing activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) provides insights into an individual’s ability to perform essential tasks and maintain independence.
• Comorbidities: Identifying and quantifying the burden of coexisting medical conditions is crucial, as comorbidities can significantly impact treatment tolerance and survival.
• Cognitive function: Evaluating cognitive abilities, such as memory and executive function, is essential for identifying patients who may struggle with treatment adherence or require additional support.
• Psychological status: Assessing for depression, anxiety, and other psychological distress is important, as these factors can influence treatment outcomes and quality of life.
• Nutritional status: Evaluating nutritional intake and identifying malnutrition or risk of malnutrition is critical, as nutritional deficiencies can impair immune function and increase susceptibility to treatment-related toxicities.
• Social support: Assessing the availability of social support and identifying social isolation is important, as social support can buffer against the negative effects of cancer and its treatment.
• Polypharmacy: Identifying the number of medications a patient is taking is important. The patient should be assessed for drug-drug and drug-disease interactions.

GA provides a more accurate picture of the patient’s overall health status and risk profile. This information can then be used to tailor treatment plans to minimize toxicity, improve adherence, and optimize outcomes.

Furthermore, GA can help identify unmet needs and facilitate referrals to appropriate supportive care services, such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, social work, and palliative care. By addressing these needs proactively, clinicians can improve the patient’s quality of life and overall well-being.

In summary, the rationale for GA in oncology is based on the recognition that chronological age is an inadequate measure of physiological age and that a comprehensive assessment of multiple domains is necessary to personalize treatment and optimize outcomes for older adults with cancer.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Core Components and Methodologies of Geriatric Assessment

The core components of GA encompass a range of assessments that evaluate the medical, functional, cognitive, psychological, and social domains. While the specific tools and methodologies may vary depending on the clinical setting and available resources, certain core elements are consistently included.

3.1 Functional Status Assessment

Functional status assessment is a cornerstone of GA. It evaluates an individual’s ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), such as bathing, dressing, eating, toileting, and transferring, and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), such as managing finances, preparing meals, using transportation, and taking medications. Common tools used to assess functional status include the Katz Index of ADL, the Lawton-Brody IADL Scale, and the Barthel Index. These tools provide a standardized measure of an individual’s functional abilities and can help identify areas where assistance is needed.

3.2 Comorbidity Assessment

Comorbidity assessment involves identifying and quantifying the burden of coexisting medical conditions. The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) is a commonly used tool for assessing comorbidity. It assigns a severity score to each of 14 organ systems, providing an overall measure of comorbidity burden. Other tools, such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index, focus on predicting mortality based on the presence of specific comorbidities. Accurate assessment of comorbidity is essential for understanding the potential impact of coexisting conditions on treatment outcomes and for tailoring treatment plans accordingly.

3.3 Cognitive Assessment

Cognitive assessment evaluates cognitive abilities, such as memory, attention, executive function, and language. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a widely used screening tool for cognitive impairment. However, it may not be sensitive enough to detect subtle cognitive deficits. More comprehensive cognitive assessments, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination, offer greater sensitivity and specificity. Identifying cognitive impairment is crucial for ensuring treatment adherence, providing appropriate support, and avoiding potentially harmful medication interactions.

3.4 Psychological Assessment

Psychological assessment evaluates psychological well-being and identifies symptoms of depression, anxiety, and other psychological distress. The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a commonly used screening tool for depression in older adults. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is another option. Identifying and addressing psychological distress is essential for improving quality of life and optimizing treatment outcomes.

3.5 Nutritional Assessment

Nutritional assessment evaluates nutritional intake and identifies malnutrition or risk of malnutrition. Tools such as the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) can be used to assess nutritional status. Malnutrition can impair immune function, increase susceptibility to treatment-related toxicities, and negatively impact survival. Addressing nutritional deficiencies through dietary interventions and nutritional support is crucial for improving treatment outcomes.

3.6 Social Assessment

Social assessment evaluates the availability of social support and identifies social isolation. Assessing social support networks and identifying potential sources of support is essential for ensuring that patients have the resources they need to cope with cancer and its treatment. Social isolation can negatively impact mental health and increase the risk of adverse outcomes.

3.7 Polypharmacy Assessment

Polypharmacy is defined as the use of multiple medications by a patient. It is especially common in older adults with multiple comorbidities. It can lead to an increased risk of drug-drug interactions, adverse drug events, and non-adherence to medications. Assessing the appropriateness of each medication, identifying potential drug interactions, and simplifying medication regimens are crucial for minimizing the risks associated with polypharmacy.

3.8 Methodologies: CGA vs. Abbreviated GA

GA can be performed using a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) or an abbreviated GA. A CGA typically involves a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, social workers, and pharmacists. It is a time-intensive process that requires specialized training and resources. Abbreviated GA tools, such as the G8 screening tool and the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13), are designed to be more efficient and easier to administer. These tools can be used to identify patients who are at high risk for adverse outcomes and who may benefit from a more comprehensive evaluation. The choice between CGA and abbreviated GA depends on the clinical setting, available resources, and the specific needs of the patient.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Predictive Value of Geriatric Assessment in Oncology

Numerous studies have demonstrated the predictive value of GA in oncology. GA has been shown to predict a variety of outcomes, including:

• Treatment-related toxicities: GA can identify patients who are at increased risk of experiencing severe treatment-related toxicities, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, myelosuppression, and peripheral neuropathy.
• Hospitalization: GA can predict the likelihood of hospitalization during cancer treatment.
• Functional decline: GA can identify patients who are at risk of experiencing functional decline during treatment, potentially leading to loss of independence.
• Mortality: GA has been consistently shown to predict overall survival in older adults with cancer. Patients with poorer GA scores tend to have shorter survival times.
• Quality of Life: GA can predict the patient’s quality of life during and after treatment.

The predictive value of GA varies depending on the specific tools and methodologies used, the type of cancer, and the patient population. However, the overall evidence supports the use of GA as a valuable tool for risk stratification and treatment planning.

For example, a meta-analysis of several studies showed that CGA predicted overall survival in older adults with cancer, independent of tumor stage and treatment modality. The study also found that CGA could identify patients who were more likely to benefit from aggressive treatment and those who were more likely to experience adverse events. Similarly, studies have shown that abbreviated GA tools, such as the G8 screening tool, can effectively identify patients at high risk of treatment-related toxicities and mortality.

The predictive value of GA extends beyond survival outcomes. GA can also inform decisions about supportive care interventions, such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work services. By identifying unmet needs and addressing them proactively, clinicians can improve the patient’s quality of life and overall well-being.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Implementation Challenges and Strategies for Overcoming Them

Despite the compelling evidence supporting the use of GA in oncology, several challenges hinder its widespread implementation. These challenges include:

• Resource constraints: GA can be time-intensive and require specialized training and resources. Many oncology practices lack the staff and resources necessary to perform comprehensive GA routinely.
• Lack of standardized protocols: There is no universally accepted standard for GA in oncology. The specific tools and methodologies used vary across different institutions and settings, making it difficult to compare results and develop best practices.
• Limited provider training: Many oncologists and other healthcare professionals lack the training and expertise necessary to perform and interpret GA effectively.
• Reimbursement issues: Reimbursement for GA services is often inadequate, making it difficult for healthcare providers to justify the time and expense associated with performing GA.
• Integration into workflow: Integrating GA into the existing oncological workflow can be challenging. GA requires coordination among multiple healthcare professionals and may require changes to existing clinical pathways.
• Patient Acceptance: Some patients may resist completing GA or may find the assessment process burdensome or intrusive.

To overcome these challenges, several strategies can be implemented:

• Develop and disseminate standardized GA protocols: Establishing clear guidelines for GA in oncology can help ensure consistency and comparability across different settings. Efforts should be made to develop standardized protocols that are tailored to specific cancer types and patient populations.
• Provide training and education for healthcare professionals: Training programs should be developed to educate oncologists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals on the principles of GA and the use of specific GA tools. These programs should emphasize the importance of GA in improving outcomes for older adults with cancer.
• Advocate for improved reimbursement for GA services: Healthcare providers should advocate for increased reimbursement for GA services to ensure that they are adequately compensated for the time and expense associated with performing GA. This may involve working with payers to develop new reimbursement models that recognize the value of GA in improving outcomes and reducing healthcare costs.
• Integrate GA into the electronic health record (EHR): Integrating GA tools into the EHR can streamline the assessment process and facilitate data collection and analysis. This can also help ensure that GA results are readily available to all members of the healthcare team.
• Utilize technology to enhance GA efficiency: Telehealth and other technologies can be used to improve the efficiency and accessibility of GA. For example, telehealth can be used to administer GA remotely, reducing the burden on patients and healthcare providers. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) can be used to automate certain aspects of the GA process and to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from GA.
• Address Patient Concerns: Educate patients about the purpose and benefits of GA and address any concerns they may have. Ensure that the assessment process is patient-centered and respectful of their preferences.

By addressing these challenges and implementing these strategies, we can foster the broader adoption of GA in oncology and improve the lives of older adults with cancer.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Future Directions

The field of GA in oncology is rapidly evolving, with several exciting future directions. These include:

• Integration of novel technologies: Telehealth, wearable sensors, and AI are being increasingly integrated into GA. Telehealth allows for remote assessment and monitoring, improving accessibility and reducing the burden on patients and healthcare providers. Wearable sensors can continuously monitor physiological parameters, such as heart rate and activity levels, providing valuable insights into functional status and overall health. AI can be used to automate certain aspects of the GA process and to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from GA.
• Development of personalized GA approaches: Future research should focus on developing GA approaches that are tailored to the specific needs of individual patients. This may involve using biomarkers, imaging data, and other information to personalize the assessment process and to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from specific interventions.
• Expansion of GA to other cancer populations: While GA has been primarily studied in older adults with cancer, it may also be beneficial in other populations, such as younger adults with cancer who have significant comorbidities or functional limitations. Future research should explore the use of GA in these populations.
• Incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs): PROs are increasingly being recognized as an important component of GA. PROs capture the patient’s perspective on their health and well-being, providing valuable insights into the impact of cancer and its treatment on their quality of life. Incorporating PROs into GA can help ensure that treatment decisions are aligned with the patient’s goals and preferences.
• Focus on interventions to improve GA outcomes: While GA is valuable for identifying patients who are at risk for adverse outcomes, it is also important to develop interventions to improve GA outcomes. These interventions may include exercise programs, nutritional support, cognitive training, and social support services. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions in improving outcomes for older adults with cancer.
• Promoting interdisciplinary collaboration: GA requires collaboration among multiple healthcare professionals, including oncologists, geriatricians, nurses, social workers, and pharmacists. Future efforts should focus on promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and developing integrated care models that facilitate communication and coordination among these professionals.

By pursuing these future directions, we can further enhance the role of GA in improving the lives of older adults with cancer.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Conclusion

Geriatric assessment is an essential tool for optimizing cancer care in older adults. By providing a comprehensive evaluation of medical, functional, cognitive, psychological, and social domains, GA enables personalized treatment strategies that maximize benefits while minimizing risks. While challenges remain in terms of implementation and standardization, ongoing research and technological advancements are paving the way for more efficient, accessible, and individualized GA approaches. Ultimately, the widespread adoption of GA holds immense potential for improving the quality of life and survival outcomes for the growing population of older adults with cancer, transforming cancer care into a truly patient-centered and age-appropriate approach.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

1. Extermann, M., Hurria, A., Cohen, H. J., Mohile, S. G., Klepin, H. D., & Lichtman, S. M. (2012). Geriatric oncology research in progress. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 10(1), 1-10.
2. Mohile, S. G., Hurria, A., Cohen, H. J., Extermann, M., & Levine, A. M. (2011). Geriatric oncology: integrating aging-related issues into cancer care. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(26), 3286-3295.
3. Balducci, L. (2005). Geriatric oncology: challenges for the new century. European Journal of Cancer, 41(7), 949-958.
4. Rockwood, K., Song, X., MacKnight, C., Bergman, H., Hogan, D. B., McDowell, I., & Mitnitski, A. (2005). A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 173(5), 489-495.
5. Katz, S., Ford, A. B., Moskowitz, R. W., Jackson, B. A., & Jaffe, M. W. (1963). Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA, 185(12), 914-919.
6. Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9(3_Part_1), 179-186.
7. Collin, C., Wade, D. T., Davies, S., & Horne, V. (1988). The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. International Disability Studies, 10(2), 61-63.
8. Linn, B. S., Linn, M. W., & Gurel, L. (1968). Cumulative illness rating scale. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 16(5), 622-626.
9. Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(5), 373-383.
10. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189-198.
11. Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., … & Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive dysfunction. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695-699.
12. Tariq, S. H., Tumosa, N., Liang, J., Discenza, R., & Morley, J. E. (2006). The Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination: a brief cognitive assessment tool for detecting mild cognitive impairment and dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 21(2), 92-98.
13. Yesavage, J. A., Brink, T. L., Rose, T. L., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M. B., & Leirer, V. O. (1982). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17(1), 37-49.
14. Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361-370.
15. Guigoz, Y. (2006). The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) review of the literature–What does it tell us?. Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 10(6), 466-485.
16. Detsky, A. S., McLaughlin, J. R., Baker, J. P., Johnston, N., Whittaker, S., Mendelson, R. A., & Jeejeebhoy, K. N. (1987). What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status?. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 11(1), 8-13.
17. O’Caoimh, R., Galllagher, P., O’Mahony, D. (2011) Potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug events in older people. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 33, 517-529.
18. Soubeyran, P., Bellera, C., Goy, E., Heitz, D., Curé, H., Blanc-Bisson, C., … & Mertens, C. (2012). Development of an oncogeriatric screening tool: the G8 screening tool. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(16), 1929-1934.
19. Saliba, D., Orlando, M., Wenger, N. S., Hays, R. D., & Rubenstein, L. Z. (1999). The vulnerable elders survey: construction and validation. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47(12), 1412-1419.
20. Wedding, U., Röhrig, G., Köhler, U., Werner, N., Pientka, L., & Höffken, K. (2007). Assessment of multidimensional geriatric data improves the prediction of early mortality in elderly cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 18(7), 1218-1222.
21. Wildes, T. M., Rupper, R., & Mustian, K. M. (2014). Polypharmacy management in older adults with cancer. Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 5(4), 352-362.