D. Wan-Chow-Wah

Difficulties in decision making regarding chemotherapy for older cancer patients: A census of cancer physicians

INTRODUCTION The management of older cancer patients is often suboptimal. This study aims to understand the management of older cancer patients who may receive chemotherapy. METHODS A questionnaire was mailed in 2006-2007 to 181 medical oncologists and hematologists practicing in the Province of Quebec, Canada. Physicians, involved in treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy in cancer patients aged 70 years and older, were eligible. RESULTS The response rate was 45.7%. Treatment toxicity (24.4%), comorbidities (20.5%), and lack of social support (10.9%) were reported as challenges when caring for older cancer patients. Comorbidities and functional status were reported as principal factors when making treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy; 77.5% of respondents expressed interest in collaborating with geriatricians. CONCLUSIONS The concerns of respondents about comorbidities, functional status, and social support, along with their interest to collaborate with geriatricians, support the need for a partnership between these two disciplines.

O9 Usefulness of frailty markers in the assessment of the health and functional status in older cancer patient referred for chemotherapy: a pilot study

BACKGROUND Older cancer patients seen in an oncology clinic seem to be healthier and less disabled than traditional geriatric patients. Choosing the most sensitive tools to assess their health status is a major issue. This cross-sectional study explores the usefulness of frailty markers in detecting vulnerability in older cancer patients. METHODS The study included cancer patients >or=70 years old referred to an oncology clinic for chemotherapy. Information on comorbidities, disability in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and activities of daily living (ADL), and seven frailty markers (nutrition, mobility, strength, energy, physical activity, mood, and cognition) was collected. Patients were classified into four hierarchical groups: 1- No frailty markers, IADL, or ADL disability; 2- Presence of frailty markers without IADL or ADL disability; 3- IADL disability without ADL disability; 4- ADL disability. RESULTS Among the 50 patients assessed, 6 (12.0%) were classified into Group 1, 21 (42.0%) into Group 2, 15 (30.0%) into Group 3, and 8 (16.0%) into Group 4. In Group 2, 7 patients (33.3 %) had one frailty marker, and 14 (66.7%) had two or more. The most prevalent of the frailty markers were nutrition, mobility, and physical activity. CONCLUSION The assessment of seven frailty markers allowed the detection of potential vulnerability among 42% of older cancer patients that would not have been detected through an assessment of IADL and ADL disability alone. A longitudinal study is needed to determine whether the use of frailty markers can better characterize the older cancer population and predict adverse outcomes due to cancer treatment.