Patient assessment and feasibility of treatment in older patients with cancer: results from the IN-GHO® Registry

  • Friedemann Honecker
  • Susanne Huschens
  • Ralf Angermund
  • Gerd Kallischnigg
  • Werner Freier
  • Christoph Friedrich
  • Gerold Hartung
  • Arnulf Lutz
  • Burkhard Otremba
  • Ludger Pientka
  • Ernst Späth-Schwalbe
  • Gerald Kolb
  • Carsten Bokemeyer
  • Ulrich Wedding
  • Initiative Geriatrische Hämatologie und Onkologie (IN-GHO®).

Beteiligte Einrichtungen

Abstract

PURPOSE: Predicting feasibility of treatment in older patients with cancer is a major clinical task. The Initiative Geriatrische Hämatologie und Onkologie (IN-GHO®) registry prospectively collected data on the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), physician's and patient's-self assessment of fitness for treatment, and the course of treatment in patients within a treatment decision aged ≥ 70 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: The registry included 3169 patients from 93 centres and evaluated clinical course and treatment outcomes 2-3 and 6 months after initial assessment. Fitness for treatment was classified as fit, compromised and frail according to results of a CGA, and in addition by an experienced physician's and by patient's itself. Feasibility of treatment (termed IN-GHO®-FIT) was defined as a composite endpoint, including willingness to undergo the same treatment again in retrospect, no modification or unplanned termination of treatment, and no early mortality (within 90 days).

RESULTS: CGA classified 30.0% as fit, 35.8% as compromised, and 34.2% as frail. Physician's and patient's-self assessment classified 61.8%/52.3% as fit, 34.2%/42.4% as compromised, and 3.9%/5.3%, as frail, respectively. Survival status at day 180 was available in 2072 patients, of which 625 (30.2%) had died. After 2-3 months, feasibility of treatment could be assessed in 1984 patients. 62.8% fulfilled IN-GHO®-FIT criteria. Multivariable analysis identified physician's assessment as the single most important item regarding feasibility of treatment.

CONCLUSION: Geriatricians were involved in 2% of patients only. Classification of fitness for treatment by CGA, and physician's or patient's-self assessment showed marked discrepancies. For the prediction of feasibility of treatment no single item was superior to physician's assessment. However CGA was not performed by trained geriatricians.

Bibliografische Daten

OriginalspracheEnglisch
ISSN0171-5216
DOIs
StatusVeröffentlicht - 11.2021
PubMed 34312732