The world’s population is aging rapidly, with projections indicating that by 2050 one in six people will be aged ≥65 years. As a result, the number of cancer cases in older people is expected to increase significantly. Palliative care is an essential component of cancer care with a direct impact on quality of life. However, older adults with cancer often suffer from multiple comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and frailty, posing unique challenges in the delivery of palliative care. The complex healthcare needs of older patients with cancer therefore require a comprehensive assessment, including a geriatric evaluation. Collaboration between geriatrics and palliative care can offer a solution to the challenges faced by older people with cancer, since this is a population with overlapping concerns for both disciplines. This review highlights the importance of palliative care for older adults with cancer and the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach. It also addresses the coordination of palliative care and geriatrics for specific symptom management and decision making.

PURPOSE: To develop and implement a continuing professional development (CPD) activity focused on geriatric assessment (GA) in oncology for oncologists and geriatricians. We evaluated the impact of this activity on knowledge, skills, and performance regarding GA in oncology, as well as its feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: We included teams composed of an oncologist and a geriatrician working in Mexico. Curriculum content was selected from geriatric oncology guidelines. We used Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcome (ECHO)'s model to create a 12-week online course. A one-group pretest post-test quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. At baseline, participants answered a multiple-choice knowledge assessment, a survey on self-perceived competence in GA, and an adaptation of the Association for Community Cancer Centers Geriatric Oncology Gap Assessment Tool, evaluating self-perceived performance in conducting geriatric interventions. These assessments and a satisfaction questionnaire were also completed postintervention. Baseline and postintervention scores were compared using paired t -tests. RESULTS: We included 40 participants (20 oncologists and 20 geriatricians). Median attendance was 10 sessions (range 2-12). Thirty-eight participants completed the satisfaction questionnaire, with a median score of 10/10 (range 8-10). The mean baseline and postintervention knowledge scores were 59.5 ± 12.8 and 74.4 ± 9.7, respectively ( P < .001, effect size 1.14). The mean baseline and postintervention competence scores were 6.42 ± 2.5 and 9.02 ± 0.8, respectively ( P < .001, effect size 1.03). The mean baseline and postintervention performance scores were 2.58 ± 0.65 and 3.29 ± 0.5, respectively ( P < .001, effect size 1.64). CONCLUSION: A CPD activity for oncologists and geriatricians on the basis of the Project ECHO model was feasible and acceptable, leading to increased knowledge, competence, and performance in geriatric oncology. This could represent a novel method for increasing the geriatric competence of the cancer care workforce in Latin America and globally.

The number of patients with solid tumours requiring intensive care is increasing as cancer survival improves and oncological treatments become more complex. Intensive care unit (ICU) admission decisions should not be based on cancer diagnosis, metastatic status or palliative treatment intent alone. This narrative review presents a practical, multidisciplinary framework for assessing critically ill patients with solid tumours. It integrates acute illness severity and reversibility, organ failure, baseline performance status and frailty, cancer trajectory, remaining treatment options, expected functional recovery and patient preferences. We discuss contemporary anticancer treatment toxicities, cancer-associated thromboembolic disease, older adults, palliative care, communication and ethical decision-making. We also propose an algorithm ranging from full ICU support to a time-limited ICU trial with predefined reassessment or comfort-focused care. Early joint assessment by oncology and intensive care teams, followed by dynamic reassessment, may reduce both inappropriate escalation and premature exclusion from potentially beneficial organ support. Future research should prioritize structured pathways, improved prognostic tools and outcomes beyond survival, including functional recovery, quality of life and the ability to resume meaningful cancer treatment.