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 .

Key Points: Geriatric assessment, with a focus on cognitive and physical function, improves prediction of survival among older adults treated for AML. Use of geriatric assessment may inform trial design and interventions to improve outcomes for older adults with AML.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been suggested as a construct for oncologists to consider in treating older cancer patients. Therefore, the authors assessed the potential of creating a deficit‐accumulation frailty index (DAFI) from a largely self‐administered comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA).METHODS: Five hundred patients aged ≥65 years underwent a CGA before receiving chemotherapy. A DAFI was constructed, resulting in a 51‐item scale, and cutoff values were examined for patients in the robust/nonfrail (cutoff value, 0.0 < 0.2), prefrail (cutoff value, 0.2 < 0.35), and frail (cutoff value, ≥ 0.35) groups.RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty patients (50%) were nonfrail, 197 (39%) were prefrail, and 52 (11%) were frail. Older patients (aged ≥ 80 years) and those who had lower education, were living alone, and had higher stage disease were associated with prefrail/frail status. Prefrail/frail patients were more likely to have grade ≥3 toxicity but not to have a dose delay or reduction, and they were more likely to discontinue drug and be hospitalized. The association with grade ≥3 toxicity was attenuated by controlling for a toxicity risk calculator, but the other outcomes were not.CONCLUSIONS: A deficit‐accumulation frailty index can be constructed from a CGA in older patients with cancer and can indicate the frailty status of the population. The frailty status so determined is associated both with outcomes likely because of chemotherapy toxicity and with those likely because of age‐related physiologic and functional deficits and thus can be useful in the overall assessment of the patient. Cancer 2016;122:3865–3872. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

PURPOSE: For patients with cancer who are older than 65 years, the 2018 ASCO Guideline recommends geriatric assessment (GA) be performed. However, there are limited data on providers’ practices using GA. Therefore, ASCO’s Geriatric Oncology Task Force conducted a survey of providers to assess practice patterns and barriers to GA. METHODS: Cancer providers treating adult patients including those ≥ 65 years completed an online survey. Questions included those asking about awareness of ASCO’s Geriatric Oncology Guideline (2018), use of validated GA tools, and perceived barriers to using GA. Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons between those aware of the Guideline and those who were not were conducted. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Participants (N = 1,277) responded between April 5 and June 5, 2019. Approximately half (53%) reported awareness of the Guideline. The most frequently used GA tools, among those aware of the Guideline and those who were not, assessed functional status (69% v 50%; P < .001) and falls (62% v 45%; P < .001). Remaining tools were used < 50% of the time, including tools assessing weight loss, comorbidities, cognition, life expectancy, chemotherapy toxicity, mood, and noncancer mortality risk. GA use was two to four times higher among those who are aware of the Guideline. The most frequent barriers for those who reported being Guideline aware were lack of resources, specifically time (81.7%) and staff (77.0%). In comparison, those who were unaware of the Guideline most often reported the following barriers: lack of knowledge or training (78.4%), lack of awareness about tools (75.2%), and uncertainty about use of tools (75.0%). CONCLUSION: Among providers caring for older adults, 52% were aware of the ASCO Guideline. Some domains were assessed frequently (eg, function, falls), whereas other domains were assessed rarely (eg, mood, cognition). Guideline awareness was associated with two to four times increased use of GA and differing perceived barriers. Interventions facilitating Guideline-consistent implementation will require various strategies to change behavior.

Treatment of older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is challenging because of disease morbidity and associated treatments. Both diseases represent a genetically heterogeneous group of disorders primarily affecting older adults, with treatment strategies ranging from supportive care to hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Although selected older adults can benefit from intensive therapies, as a group they experience increased treatment-related morbidity, are more likely to relapse, and have decreased survival. Age-related outcome disparities are attributed to both tumor and patient characteristics, requiring an individualized approach to treatment decision making beyond consideration of chronologic age alone. Selection of therapy for any individual requires consideration of both disease-specific risk factors and estimates of treatment tolerance and life expectancy derived from evaluation of functional status and comorbidity. Although treatment options for older adults are expanding, clinical trials accounting for the heterogeneity of tumor biology and aging are needed to define standard-of-care treatments for both disease groups. In addition, trials should include outcomes addressing quality of life, maintenance of independence, and use of health care services to assist in patient-centered decision making. This review will highlight available evidence in treatment of older adults with AML or MDS and unanswered clinical questions for older adults with these diseases.

PURPOSE: Limited tools exist to predict the risk of chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Patients of age ≥ 65 years with stage I-III breast cancer from 16 institutions treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy were prospectively evaluated for geriatric and clinical features predictive of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity. Logistic regression with best-subsets selection was used to identify and incorporate independent predictors of toxicity into a model with weighted variable scoring. Model performance was evaluated using area under the ROC curve (AUC) and goodness-of-fit statistics. The model was internally and externally validated. RESULTS: In 473 patients (283 in development and 190 in validation cohort), 46% developed grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicities. Eight independent predictors were identified (each assigned weighted points): anthracycline use (1 point), stage II or III (3 points), planned treatment duration > 3 months (4 points), abnormal liver function (3 points), low hemoglobin (3 points), falls (4 points), limited walking (3 points), and lack of social support (3 points). We calculated risk scores for each patient and defined three risk groups: low (0-5 points), intermediate (6-11 points), or high (≥ 12 points). In the development cohort, the rates of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity for these three groups were 19%, 54%, and 87%, respectively ( P < .01). In the validation cohort, the corresponding toxicity rates were 27%, 45%, and 76%. The AUC was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81) in the development cohort and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.77) in the validation cohort. Risk groups were also associated with hospitalizations and reduced dose intensity ( P < .01). CONCLUSION: The Cancer and Aging Research Group-Breast Cancer (CARG-BC) score was developed and validated to predict grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with early-stage breast cancer.