For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

Decision-making in older patients with cancer can be complex, as benefits of treatment should be weighed against possible side-effects and life-expectancy. A novel care pathway was set up incorporating geriatric assessment into treatment decision-making for older cancer patients. Treatment decisions could be modified following discussion in an onco-geriatric multidisciplinary team (MDT). We assessed the effect of treatment modifications on outcomes. This retrospective study was performed in the surgical department of a University Hospital. Patients of 70 years and older with a solid malignancy were included. All patients underwent a nurse-led geriatric assessment (GA) and were discussed in an onco-geriatric MDT. This could result in a modified or an unchanged treatment advice compared to the regular tumor board. Primary outcome was one-year mortality. Secondary outcomes were post-operative complications and days spent in hospital in the first year after inclusion. For the 184 patients in the analyses, the median age was 77.5 years and 41.8% were female. For 46 patients (25%), the treatment advice was modified by the onco-geriatric MDT. There was no significant difference in one-year mortality between the unchanged and modified group (29.7% versus 26.1%, p = 0.7). There were, however, significantly fewer days spent in hospital (median 5 vs 8.5 days p = 0.02) and fewer grade II or higher postoperative complications (13.3% versus 35.5% p = 0.005) in the modified group. Incorporating geriatric assessment in decision-making did not lead to excess one-year mortality, but did result in fewer complications and days spent in hospital.

We aimed to evaluate the association between frailty screening and geriatric assessment (GA) on short term adverse events in patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC) for the first time in a prospective study. Newly diagnosed HNC patients undergoing curative treatment were prospectively included in OncoLifeS, a data biobank. Prior to the start of treatment, frailty was assessed with a GA, Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Geriatric-8 (G8). The GA included comorbidity (Adult Comorbidity Evaluation - 27), nutritional status (Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool), functional status ((instrumental) Activities of Daily Living), mobility (Timed Up & Go), psychological (Geriatric Depression Scale 15) and cognitive (Mini Mental State Examination) measures. Clinically relevant postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade 2) and acute radiation-induced toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 ≥ grade 2) were defined as outcome measures. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed, yielding odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Of the 369 included patients, 259 patients were eligible for analysis. Postoperative complications occurred in 41/148 (27.7%) patients and acute radiation-induced toxicity was present in 86/160 (53.7%) patients. Number of deficit domains of GA (OR = 1.71, 95%CI = 1.14-2.56), GFI (OR = 2.54, 95%CI = 1.02-6.31) and G8 (OR5.59, 95%CI = 2.14-14.60) were associated with postoperative complications, but not with radiation-induced toxicity. Frailty and restrictions in geriatric domains were associated with postoperative complications, but not with radiation-induced acute toxicity in curatively treated HNC patients. The results of this prospective study further emphasizes the importance of geriatric evaluation, particularly before surgery.

For shared decision making, it is crucial to identify patients' priorities regarding health outcomes. Our aim was to study whether healthcare professionals know these priorities. In this cross-sectional study we included older patients who had to make a treatment decision, their general practitioners (GPs) and their medical specialists. Agreement between the patients' main health outcome as prioritised by using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) and the perception of the same outcome by their healthcare professionals. Eighty-seven patients were included. Median age was 76 years, 87.4% of patients presented with malignant disease. The majority prioritised maintaining independence (51.7%), followed by extending life (27.6%). The agreement between patients and healthcare professionals was low (GPs 41.7%, kappa 0.067, p = 0.39), medical specialists 40.3%, kappa 0.074, p = 0.33). Positively related to agreement was patient's age > 75, and a longer relation with their patients (for GPs), and the patient having no partner (for medical specialist). Having a malignant disease, dependent living and functional deficits were negatively related to agreement. Healthcare professionals have poor perceptions of their patients' priorities. To realise patient-centered care, it is crucial to discuss priorities explicitly with all patients.

Although the increasing cancer incidence in older patients is widely recognised, older patients remain underrepresented in clinical cancer trials and eHealth studies. The aim of this research is to identify technological and patient-related barriers to inclusion of this population in a clinical eHealth study. This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study with older patients (≥ 65 years) undergoing cancer-related surgery, who were identified for a perioperative telemonitoring study. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal had been prospectively registered. Characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared between participants and non-participants. Between May 2018 and March 2020, 151 patients were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 65 participants and 86 non-participants. The main reason for ineligibility was lack of internet access at home (n = 16), while main reasons for refusal were perceived high mental burden (n = 46) and insufficient digital skills (n = 12). Compared with participants, non-participants were significantly older (mean age 75 vs. 73, p = 0.01); more often female (64% vs. 35%, p = 0.00), unmarried (42% vs. 8%, p = 0.01) living alone (38% vs. 19%, p = 0.02); had a higher ASA classification (43% vs. 19%, p = 0.00); often had polypharmacy (67% vs. 43%, p = 0.00); and were more often discharged to skilled nursing facilities (0% vs. 15%, p = 0.00). Our results confirm the underrepresentation of older female patients with little support from a partner and higher comorbidity. We should be aware of technological and patient-related barriers to including older adults with cancer, in order to avoid further dividing patients with low and high digital health literacy.