Implementing a mutidisciplinary approach for older adults with cancer: Challenges and achievements in a geriatric oncology program in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Luciola De Barros Pontes,Jennifer Kamila da Silva,Juliana duarte Santos,Regiane Proença,Nadia Haidar Buesa,Adriana Fatima Dutra,Fabiola Alves de Santana Borges,Maria Livia Leite de Abreu Gomes,Raquel de Sousa Neto,Bianca Vasconcellos da Conceição,Carolina Ferraioli Porro,Jadna Helena dos Santos França,Nivalda Gonçalves Ferreira,Carla Jussaria de Oliveira,Thassio Pastre Criminazzo,Leonardo Daniel Mendes,Jakline Maria Freire,Amanda Costa Rosa da Silva,Evelyn Aparecida Nascimento
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13769
IF: 45.3
2024-05-31
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e13769 Background: Treating an older adult with cancer is complex and requires multidisciplinary effort. Multiple studies demonstrate the benefits of timely integration of Geriatric Oncology (GO) with routine oncologic care. Despite this growing body of evidence, there are very few cancer centers around the world that have a dedicated GO program, notably in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC). The objective of this abstract is to describe the first year of the GO program in a private oncology center in São Paulo, Brazil. Methods: As an effort of oncologists, geriatricians and nurses, the team built a consultative model with a nurse performing the G8 triage score to every cancer patient aged ≥ 70 years. For those with a G8 less than 14 points, a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) was performed. The results of the CGA were than provided as a report to the treating physician and all the members of the multidisciplinary team, so that a geriatric assessment (GA) driven intervention could be planned. The patients were then followed for 3, 6, and 12 months to detect falls, emergency rooms visits, hospitalizations, and death. Results: From January 2023 to January 2024, 110 patients with a median age of 79 were evaluated, with 57% having a G8 less than 14. 70 patients we submitted to a CGA. The majority of the tumors were gastrointestinal (30%), lung (20%) and genito-urinary (17%). Regarding the GA domains: 70% of the patients had a possible or probable cognitive impairment by the 10-point cognitive screener; 53% mild psychological distress by PHQ-4 Screening Tool; 47% showed important reduction in hand grip strength scale calling the attention to sarcopenia; 48% were found to be at nutritional risk and 42% were classified as malnourished at the mini-nutritional assessment; polypharmacy was detected in 67% of the patients. Despite these findings, 78% of the patients we classified as ECOG 0 or 1. After GA driven interventions, at 3 and 6 months follow up, 88% of the patients remained with no falls, with a mild rate of hospitalizations (40%) and a low rate of treatment discontinuation (15%). By the end of 6 month follow up, 24% of the patients have died. Conclusions: Geriatric conditions such as functional impairment are common and frequently unrecognized or inadequately addressed in older adults with cancer. Identifying geriatric conditions by performing a GA can help the health team to manage these conditions and provide better oncology care.
oncology