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 .

ASCO–Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO) Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO-SIO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO and SIO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO and SIO do not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE: To update the ASCO guideline on the management of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in adult survivors of cancer. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, geriatric oncology, internal medicine, psychology, psychiatry, exercise oncology, integrative medicine, behavioral oncology, nursing, and advocacy experts was convened. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2013-2023. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 113 RCTs. Exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and mindfulness-based programs led to improvements in CRF both during and after the completion of cancer treatment. Tai chi, qigong, and American ginseng showed benefits during treatment, whereas yoga, acupressure, and moxibustion helped to manage CRF after completion of treatment. Use of other dietary supplements did not improve CRF during or after cancer treatment. In patients at the end of life, CBT and corticosteroids showed benefits. Certainty and quality of evidence were low to moderate for CRF management interventions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians should recommend exercise, CBT, mindfulness-based programs, and tai chi or qigong to reduce the severity of fatigue during cancer treatment. Psychoeducation and American ginseng may be recommended in adults undergoing cancer treatment. For survivors after completion of treatment, clinicians should recommend exercise, CBT, and mindfulness-based programs; in particular, CBT and mindfulness-based programs have shown efficacy for managing moderate to severe fatigue after treatment. Yoga, acupressure, and moxibustion may also be recommended. Patients at the end of life may be offered CBT and corticosteroids. Clinicians should not recommend L-carnitine, antidepressants, wakefulness agents, or routinely recommend psychostimulants to manage symptoms of CRF. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against other psychosocial, integrative, or pharmacological interventions for the management of fatigue. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Patient-centered communication promotes high-quality conversations prioritizing patient and caregiver concerns so that decisions are aligned with their preferences and values. Effective communication is characterized by (1) informed and participatory patients and caregivers; (2) informed, receptive, and patient-centered clinicians; and (3) a health care system providing well-organized and responsive services that are tailored to patients’ and caregivers’ needs.^1,2 Although studies have demonstrated benefits for interventions that facilitate oncologist-patient communication,^3-5 these interventions were not tailored to address aging-related concerns of older adults receiving cancer treatment and their caregivers.

Polypharmacy is a highly prevalent problem in older persons, and is challenging to assess and improve due to variations in definitions of the problem and the heterogeneous methods of medication review and reduction. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence regarding the prevalence and impact of polypharmacy in geriatric oncology patients and to provide recommendations for assessment and management. Polypharmacy has somewhat variably been incorporated into geriatric assessment studies in geriatric oncology, and polypharmacy has not been consistently evaluated as a predictor of negative outcomes in patients with cancer. Once screened, interventions for polypharmacy are even more uncertain. There is a great need to create standardized interventions to improve polypharmacy in geriatrics, and particularly in geriatric oncology. The process of deprescribing is aimed at reducing medications for which real or potential harm outweighs benefit, and there are numerous methods to determine which medications are candidates for deprescribing. However, deprescribing approaches have not been evaluated in older patients with cancer. Ultimately, methods to identify polypharmacy will need to be clearly defined and validated, and interventions to improve medication use will need to be based on clearly defined and standardized methods.

Cancer cachexia is a syndrome characterized by weight loss with accompanying loss of muscle and/or fat mass and leads to impaired patient function and physical performance and is associated with a poor prognosis. It is prevalent in older adults with cancer; age-associated physiologic muscle wasting and weakness, also known as sarcopenia, can compound deficits associated with cancer cachexia in older adults and makes studying this condition more complex in this population. Multiple measurement options are available to assess the older patient with cancer and cachexia and/or sarcopenia including anthropometric measures, imaging modalities such as Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and Computed Tomography (CT), muscular strength and physical performance testing, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A geriatric assessment (GA) is a useful tool when studying the older patient with cachexia given its comprehensive ability to capture aging-sensitive PROs. Interventions focused on nutrition and increasing physical activity may improve outcomes in older adults with cachexia. Efforts to develop targeted pharmacologic therapies with cachexia have not been successful thus far. Formal treatment guidelines, an updated consensus definition for cancer cachexia and the development of a widely adapted assessment tool, much like the GA utilized in geriatric oncology, could help advance the field of cancer cachexia over the next decade.

Background: Polypharmacy (PP) and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are highly prevalent in older adults with cancer. This study systematically reviews the associations of PP and/or PIM with outcomes and, through a meta-analysis, obtains estimates of postoperative outcomes associated with PP in this population.Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials using standardized terms for concepts of PP, PIM, and cancer. Eligible studies included cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, meta-analyses, and clinical trials which examined outcomes associated with PP and/or PIM and included older adults with cancer. A random effects model included studies in which definitions of PP were consistent to examine the association of PP with postoperative complications.Results: Forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. PP was defined as five or more medications in 57% of the studies. Commonly examined outcomes included chemotherapy toxicities, postoperative complications, functional decline, hospitalization, and overall survival. PP was associated with chemotherapy toxicities (4/9 studies), falls (3/3 studies), functional decline (3/3 studies), and overall survival (2/11 studies). A meta-analysis of four studies indicated an association between PP (≥5 medications) and postoperative complications (overall odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval [1.3–2.8]). PIM was associated with adverse outcomes in 3 of 11 studies.Conclusion: PP is associated with postoperative complications, chemotherapy toxicities, and physical and functional decline. Only three studies showed an association between PIM and outcomes. However, because of inconsistent definitions, heterogeneous populations, and variable study designs, these associations should be further investigated in prospective studies.