134 / 154
S104
A B S T R A C T S
Methods:
This is an observational and prospective cohort
study approved by an ethics committee. A complete CGA has
been done. Treatments made, final therapeutic decisions and
geriatric interventions have been collected during the follow-
up.
Results:
The study included 58 patients, 31 men and 27
women.The mean age was 83y. 39 patients were dependent for
ADL. 38 patients were Balducci 3. 25 patients were metastatic.
There were 13 patients with clear renal cell carcinoma; half
of patients had no histology. The most common predisposing
factors were hypertension (n=39), and chronic kidney disease
(n=24).32patients of the 58 enrolledpatientswere symptomatic.
The geriatric interventions the most often proposed were
: the nutritional management (n=48), physiotherapy (n=34)
and prevention of delirium (n=23). 25 patients approved the
care plan, 22 opinions are not known. 21 patients undergo
the standard treatment (33%), 37 patients have a modification
of the care plan (67%). CGA influence the modification of the
therapeutic decision in over 43% (n=23) of cases, and for the
most of them it was best supportive care, active surveillance
or ablative therapies. Of 22 operated patients, there were 16
extended radical nephrectomies, 4 partial nephrectomies
and 2 radical nephrectomies. 4 arterial embolization and 1
radiofrequency ablation were conducted. 4 patients received
inhibitors of VEGF receptors and 2 patients received mTOR
inhibitors.The 3 factors influencing the modification treatment
are geriatric factors from the CGA: decline of autonomy, a
decreased gait speed, and a home confinement.
Conclusion:
There is a major selection of patients by
urologists, explaining why the effect of geriatric assessment
is increasingly important in the treatment of elderly patients
with kidney cancer. There is still a difference between the
recommended standard treatment and those applied after
multidisciplinary consultation. Reasons that lead to the
modification of treatment were the existence of geriatric
syndromes and not the anesthetic evaluation. The French
Association of Urology recommends to have an early CGA for
patient over 70y.
Disclosure of interest:
None declared
Keywords:
Elderly cancer patient, geriatric assessment,
kidney cancer, renal cell carcinoma
P115
SENIOR TORONTO ONCOLOGY PANEL – RESEARCH
PARTICIPATION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH CANCER AND
FAMILY MEMBERS/CAREGIVERS
M. Puts
1,
*, S. Sattar
1
, T. Fossat
1
, M. Fitch
1
, T. Hsu
2
,
E. Szumacher
3
, D. Stephens
4
, G. Macdonald
1
, D. Macdonald
4
,
B. Liu
5,6
, L. Jeffs
7,8
, J. Jones
9,10
, K. McGilton
8,11
, S. Alibhai
12,13
1
Lawrence S.Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto,
Toronto,
2
Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre,
Ottawa,
3
Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre,
4
not applicable, not applicable,
5
Division of Geriatric Medicine,
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre,
6
Division of Geriatric Medicine,
University of Toronto,
7
Nursing Research, St. Michael’s hospital,
8
Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto,
9
ELLICSR, University Health Network,
10
Psychiatry, University of
Toronto,
11
Toronto Rehabilitation Institute,
12
Medicine, University
Health Network,
13
Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Introduction:
Older adults are frequently underrepresented
in clinical cancer research. More patient engagement in
research may lead to more relevant data to help improve
health outcomes.
Objectives:
The objectives of this study were: 1) to
understand the research priorities of older adults with
cancer and their caregivers; 2) to examine how to engage this
population in research; and 3) to examine how to support
older adults and their caregivers in becoming co-researchers.
Methods:
Publicmeetings and focus groupswere conducted
to explore research priorities and to discuss their support
needs in order to be able to participate as research team
members. Older adults aged 60 years and over diagnosed with
cancer in the previous ten years and their family members/
caregivers were recruited through newspaper ads, flyers in
hospital waiting rooms and email ads sent by our partners
(charitable foundations, support groups, CARP chapters) to
their members. The focus groups were held in local libraries
from December 2015-April 2016. The focus groups were
audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data was
analysed using thematic analysis. At the end of each public
meeting and focus group attendees were asked to complete
a brief survey to obtain their health and sociodemographic
characteristics. They were also asked if they were willing to be
included in the participant pool so that for future studies they
can be contacted.
Results:
Three public meetings and seven focus groups
with older adults and caregivers were conducted. Over 55
older adults and caregivers attended a public meeting and
60 older adults and caregivers attended a focus group. The
research priorities were previously presented at the SIOG
meeting in 2015. The majority of the older adults and their
caregivers had never participated in research before but were
very interested in becoming a research team member and
being involved in all steps of research if this could benefit
them or other patients and caregivers. the following factors
were identified by patients and caregivers to facilitate older
adults’ participation on research teams: flexibility in time and
location, accessibility to computer technology, transportation
support, material translation, short training sessions, having
opportunities for peer support. The older adults as research
team members preferred to have meetings with the other
members of the research team face-to-to face to facilitate
social connections.
Conclusion:
Our study showed that older adults are very
willing to participate and be part of a research team.The social
aspect of being on a team is important should be considered.
Disclosure of interest:
None declared
Keywords:
Focus group, older adult as research team
member, participant pool, patient engagement in research,
public meetings