Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Nov-Dec;74(6):496-518.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21864. Epub 2024 Aug 29.

Geriatric assessment for the practicing clinician: The why, what, and how

Affiliations
Review

Geriatric assessment for the practicing clinician: The why, what, and how

Allison Magnuson et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

Older adults with cancer heterogeneously experience health care, treatment, and symptoms. Geriatric assessment (GA) offers a comprehensive evaluation of an older individual's health status and can predict cancer-related outcomes in individuals with solid tumors and those with hematologic malignancies. In the last decade, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefits of GA and GA management (GAM), which uses GA information to provide tailored intervention strategies to address GA impairments (e.g., implementing physical therapy for impaired physical function). Multiple phase 3 clinical trials in older adults with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies have demonstrated that GAM improves treatment completion, quality of life, communication, and advance care planning while reducing treatment-related toxicity, falls, and polypharmacy. Nonetheless, implementation and uptake of GAM remain challenging. Various strategies have been proposed, including the use of GA screening tools, to identify patients most likely to benefit from GAM, the systematic engagement of the oncology workforce in the delivery of GAM, and the integration of technologies like telemedicine and mobile health to enhance the availability of GA and GAM interventions. Health inequities in minoritized groups persist, and systematic GA implementation has the potential to capture social determinants of health that are relevant to equitable care. Caregivers play an important role in cancer care and experience burden themselves. GA can guide dyadic supportive care interventions, ultimately helping both patients and caregivers achieve optimal health.

Keywords: aging; geriatric assessment; geriatric oncology; treatment‐related toxicity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Melody K. Schiaffino owns stock in Moderna and AstraZeneca. Grant R. Williams reports personal/consulting fees from Takeda Oncology outside the submitted work. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Geriatric assessment domains, tools, and most common management recommendations from the GAP70 study. ADL indicates activities of daily living; BOMC, Blessed Orientation‐Memory‐Concentration test; GA, geriatric assessment; GAD‐7, Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; GAP70, Geriatric Assessment for Patients 70+; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; MNA, Mini Nutritional Assessment; OARS, Older Americans Resources and Services; PCP, primary care physician; s, seconds; SPPB, short physical performance battery; TUG, timed up and go.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Proposed workflow for GA implementation. This figure outlines how components of GA can be incorporated into routine clinical workflow (in italics). Additional time needed to integrate GA into existing workflow is indicated for each step. GA indicates geriatric assessment; PROs, patient‐reported outcomes.

References

    1. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–656. doi: 10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM, ed. Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. Columbia University Press; 1949:191–205.
    1. Hurria A, Togawa K, Mohile SG, et al. Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(25):3457–3465. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.7625 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, Chi M, Purnell C. Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 1999;7(5):332–335. doi: 10.1007/s005200050271 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kelly CM, Shahrokni A. Moving beyond Karnofsky and ECOG performance status assessments with new technologies. J Oncol. 2016;2016:1–13. doi: 10.1155/2016/6186543 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types