PURPOSE: To update the ASCO guideline (2018) on the practical assessment and management of age-associated vulnerabilities in older patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses from January 2016 to December 2022. RESULTS: A total of 26 publications met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the update. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Expert Panel reiterates its overarching recommendation from the prior guideline that geriatric assessment (GA), including all essential domains, should be used to identify vulnerabilities or impairments that are not routinely captured in oncology assessments for all patients over 65 years old with cancer. Based on recently published RCTs demonstrating significantly improved clinical outcomes, all older adults with cancer (65+ years old) receiving systemic therapy with GA-identified deficits should have GA-guided management (GAM) included in their care plan. GAM includes using GA findings to inform cancer treatment decision-making as well as to address impairments through appropriate interventions, counseling, and/or referrals. A GA should include high priority aging-related domains known to be associated with outcomes in older adults with cancer: physical and cognitive function, emotional health, comorbid conditions, polypharmacy, nutrition, and social support. Clinical adaptation of the GA based on patient population, resources, and time is appropriate. The Panel recommends the Practical Geriatric Assessment as one option for this purpose ( https://old-prod.asco.org/sites/new-www.asco.org/files/content-files/practice-patients/documents/2023-PGA-Final.pdf ; https://youtu.be/jnaQIjOz2Dw ; https://youtu.be/nZXtwaGh0Z0 ). Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Geriatric assessment is a multidisciplinary diagnostic process that evaluates the older adult’s medical, psychological, social, and functional capacity. No systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment in oncology has been conducted. The goals of this systematic review were: 1) to provide an overview of all geriatric assessment instruments used in the oncology setting; 2) to examine the feasibility and psychometric properties of those instruments; and 3) to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of geriatric assessment in predicting or modifying outcomes (including the impact on treatment decision making, toxicity of treatment, and mortality). We searched Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English, French, Dutch, or German between January 1, 1996, and November 16, 2010, reporting on cross-sectional, longitudinal, interventional, or observational studies that assessed the feasibility or effectiveness of geriatric assessment instruments. The quality of articles was evaluated using relevant quality assessment frameworks. We identified 83 articles that reported on 73 studies. The quality of most studies was poor to moderate. Eleven studies examined psychometric properties or diagnostic accuracy of the geriatric assessment instruments used. The assessment generally took 10–45min. Geriatric assessment was most often completed to describe a patient’s health and functional status. Specific domains of geriatric assessment were associated with treatment toxicity in 6 of 9 studies and with mortality in 8 of 16 studies. Of the four studies that examined the impact of geriatric assessment on the cancer treatment decision, two found that geriatric assessment impacted 40%–50% of treatment decisions. Geriatric assessment in the oncology setting is feasible, and some domains are associated with adverse outcomes. However, there is limited evidence that geriatric assessment impacted treatment decision making. Further research examining the effectiveness of geriatric assessment on treatment decisions and outcomes is needed.

Purpose: Use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may be associated with an increased risk of diabetes mellitus but the risk of both acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiovascular mortality remain controversial because few outcomes and conflicting findings have been reported. We sought to clarify whether ADT is associated with these outcomes in a large, representative cohort. Methods: Using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, men age 66 years or older with prostate cancer given continuous ADT for at least 6 months or who underwent bilateral orchiectomy (n = 19,079) were matched with men with prostate cancer who had never received ADT. Treated and untreated groups were matched 1:1 (ie, hard-matched) on age, prior cancer treatment, and year of diagnosis and propensity-matched on comorbidities, medications, cardiovascular risk factors, prior fractures, and socioeconomic variables. Primary outcomes were development of AMI, sudden cardiac death, and diabetes. Fragility fracture was also examined. Results: The cohort was observed for a mean of 6.47 years. In time-to-event analyses, ADT use was associated with an increased risk of diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.21) and fragility fracture (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.53 to 1.77) but not with AMI (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.00) or sudden cardiac death (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.10). Increasing duration of ADT was associated with an excess risk of fragility fractures and diabetes but not cardiac outcomes. Conclusion: Continuous ADT use for at least 6 months in older men is associated with an increased risk of diabetes and fragility fracture but not AMI or sudden cardiac death.