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
94P - Prognostic influence of mean platelet volume on stage III rectal cancer patients: A tertiary cancer center study
Presenter: Pavan Jonnada
Session: e-Poster Display Session
95P - Prognosis of Japanese patients with detailed RAS/BRAF mutant colorectal cancer
Presenter: Tatsuki Ikoma
Session: e-Poster Display Session
96P - Early-onset colorectal cancer prognosis, conflict resolution, review of literature and meta-analysis
Presenter: Ereny Poles
Session: e-Poster Display Session
97P - A population-based study to assess the associations of rural residence and low socioeconomic status (SES) with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC)
Presenter: Atul Batra
Session: e-Poster Display Session
98P - Operational challenges of an Asian Pacific (APAC) academic oncology clinical trial
Presenter: Daphne Day
Session: e-Poster Display Session
99P - Development of a qRT-PCR-based diagnostic test to identify colorectal cancer patients with recurrent R-Spondin gene fusions
Presenter: Veronica Diermayr
Session: e-Poster Display Session
100P - Individualized treatment of advanced digestive system tumour guided by PDTX mouse model: A multicenter trial
Presenter: yuan cheng
Session: e-Poster Display Session
101P - HIF1-α depletion overcomes resistance to oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer via ERK signalling pathway
Presenter: Se Jun Park
Session: e-Poster Display Session
102P - Colorectal cancer organoids culture exploits new neoadjuvant therapy resistance mechanisms and therapeutic targets
Presenter: Yun Deng
Session: e-Poster Display Session
103P - Comprehensive genomic landscape in younger and older Chinese patients with colorectal cancer
Presenter: Huina Wang
Session: e-Poster Display Session