The aim of this systematic review is to summarize all available data on the effect of a geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer, for oncologic treatment decisions, the implementation of non-oncologic interventions, patient-doctor communication, and treatment outcome. Additionally, we examined the impact of the type of assessment used. Systematic Medline and Embase search for studies on the effect of a geriatric assessment on oncologic treatment decisions, non-oncologic interventions, communication, and outcome. Sixty-five publications from 61 studies were included. After a geriatric assessment, the oncologic treatment plan was altered in a median of 31% of patients (range 7-56%), with highest change rates in studies using a multidisciplinary team evaluation. Non-oncologic interventions were recommended in over 70% of patients, provided that an intervention plan or specific expertise was in place. A geriatric assessment led to more goals-of-care discussions and improved communication. The geriatric assessment also led to lower toxicity/complication rates (most strongly if the assessment outcomes were considered during decision making), improved likelihood of treatment completion, and improved physical functioning and quality of life in the majority of included studies. A geriatric assessment can change oncologic treatment plans, leads to non-oncologic interventions, and improve communication about care planning and ageing-related issues. It can decrease toxicity/complications and improve treatment completion and patient-centred outcomes. If multidisciplinary or geriatric input is not available, having a pre-defined non-oncologic intervention plan is important. To maximize the effect on outcomes, the result of the geriatric assessment should be incorporated into oncologic decision-making.

Background. Awareness of the use of geriatric assessments for older patients with cancer is increasing. The aim of this review is to summarize all available evidence on the association between geriatric assessments and relevant oncologic outcomes. Method. A systematic search was conducted in Medline and Embase of studies on geriatric assessment in oncology, focusing on the association between baseline assessment and outcome. Results. The literature search identified 2008 reports; 51 publications from 37 studies were selected for inclusion in the review. The quality of studies was heterogeneous and generally poor. A median of five geriatric conditions were assessed per study (interquartile range: 4–8). Little consistency was found in the results of the studies. Furthermore, different tools appear to be predictive depending on the outcome measure: frailty, nutritional status, and comorbidity assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics were predictive for all-cause mortality; frailty was predictive for toxicity of chemotherapy; cognitive impairment and activities of daily living impairment were predictive for chemotherapy completion; and instrumental activities of daily living impairment was predictive for perioperative complications. Conclusion. Although various geriatric conditions appear to be of some value in predicting outcome in elderly patients with cancer, the results are too inconsistent to guide treatment decisions. Further research is needed to elucidate the role of geriatric assessments in the oncologic decision-making process for these patients.