Abstract 353P
Background
To date, there is limited information on Indian oncologists' views and experiences of geriatric oncology. This study aimed to explore the views of Indian oncologists regarding the perception of, and barriers to the incorporation of geriatric screening tools, GA and collaboration with geriatricians in routine clinical practice.
Methods
This was an anonymized cross-sectional survey. The online survey, based on a literature review and expert opinion, comprised 12 questions covering: (i) respondent characteristics, clinical practice environment and patient population; (ii) challenges and treatment decision-making factors in the management of older patients with cancer; and (iii) benefits of and barriers to the implementation of GA or geriatrician review in cancer care for older patients. Qualitative variables were reported as numbers (N) and percentages. Statistical analyses were performed using χ 2 or Fisher’s exact test. Results were considered statistically significant with p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software (version 20).
Results
Between March 2019 and June 2019, 100 answers were collected. Only 74 centres (48%) had a geriatrics department and a mere 21 (14%) medical oncology departments had a person dedicated to GO. The vast majority (n = 100; 88%) had the perception that the number of elderly patients with cancer seen in clinical practice had increased. Eighteen (12%) oncologists had specific protocols and geriatric scales were used at 55 (31%) centres. Almost all (91%) claimed not to apply special management practices using specific tools for every geriatric patient. There was agreement that GO afforded certain potential advantages. Finally, 99% of the oncologists surveyed believed it and that training in GO had to be improved.
Conclusions
From the nationwide survey, we conclude that there is currently no defined care structure for elderly cancer patients. There is an increasing perception of the need for training in GO. This survey reflects a reality in which specific needs are perceived.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Tata Memorial Hospital.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
The author has declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
434P - Pan-Canadian evidence-based, consensus-driven cancer treatment protocols/information for use at the point of care by medical oncologists? Is there a need?
Presenter: Kiran Virik
Session: e-Poster Display Session
435P - Hypnotics and risk of cancer: A meta-analysis of observational studies
Presenter: Tzu Rong Peng
Session: e-Poster Display Session
436P - Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of adolescent and young adult (AYA) melanoma: Results from an Asian perspective
Presenter: Wei Lin Goh
Session: e-Poster Display Session
437P - Long-term efficacy and toxicity outcome of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy for medullary thyroid cancer: A single institution cohort study
Presenter: Ka Man Cheung
Session: e-Poster Display Session
438P - Real-world data of relapse after adjuvant treatment (Tx) in high-risk melanoma
Presenter: Carolina Ortiz Velez
Session: e-Poster Display Session
439P - Immunohistochemical analysis of p53 and Ki-67 in glioblastoma (GBM) and their correlations with patient survival
Presenter: Paulo Luz
Session: e-Poster Display Session
440P - Blinded independent central review of oncology trials: The monitoring of readers' performance
Presenter: Hubert Beaumont
Session: e-Poster Display Session
441P - Influence of radiation therapy of patients with somatotropic pituitary adenomas depending on the age of patients
Presenter: Saodat Issaeva
Session: e-Poster Display Session
442P - Results from the registrational phase I/II ARROW trial of pralsetinib (BLU-667) in patients (pts) with advanced RET mutation-positive medullary thyroid cancer (RET+ MTC)
Presenter: Bhumsuk Keam
Session: e-Poster Display Session