Abstract 1851P
Background
Treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer is complex. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) can identify those at potentially higher risk for toxicity, lead to personalised treatment decisions and thus improve patient outcomes. As CGA is time and resource-intensive it is necessary to select patients who will benefit most. Validated screening tools such as the G8 tool allow for a better selection of those most likely to benefit from CGA. We present our findings of utilising the G8 to identify patients suitable to attend for a CGA in a dedicated Geriatric Oncology Clinic in the South East Cancer Centre, Ireland.
Methods
Older adults (≥70 years) referred to medical oncology with a new cancer diagnosis were screened virtually using the G8 tool. G8 scores range from 0-17, with CGA recommended for scores ≤14. G8 scores were sent to the medical oncologist prior to their initial assessment. Where CGA was recommended, a referral to the service was at the discretion of the treating oncologist.
Results
One hundred and seven patients were screened over a nine-month period in 2020/2021. Age range 70-93 years; median 76 years. Sixty-eight percent (n=73) scored ≤14 and CGA was advised. CGA was completed on 67% (n=49) of those. Full dose chemotherapy was advised for 53% (n=26); modified regimen in 14%(n=7) and 12% (n=12) best supportive care (BSC). Thirty-three percent (n=24), were recommended a CGA but not referred by treating oncologist. Of those not referred for CGA, 21% (n=5) received full dose chemo, 25% (n=6) endocrine therapy, 8% (n=2) a modified regimen and 25% (n=6) BSC.
Conclusions
G8 screening is feasible. Two-thirds of patients were recommended CGA based on G8 results in this series. Consequently, the downstream time and resource implications in service development need to be considered when initiating routine screening. CGA provides the oncologist with additional information to guide treatment decisions with the aim of reducing toxicity and improving patient outcomes.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
M. Hannan.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.