141 / 154
A B S T R A C T S
S111
toxicity from the CARG Score and oncologists were not
correlated (r=0.0031) (Figure 1).
Table 1 (abstract P125) – Oncologist’s estimate by CARG Score risk
group
Oncologist
Rate of
estimate of
severe
severe
toxicity
Number
toxicity
expected
CARG Score
of
(median and
(Hurria
Risk Group
patients
range)
et al (2011))
Low (score 0 to 5)
14
40% (25 to 60%)
30%
Intermediate (score 6 to 9) 40
40% (10 to 80%)
52%
High (score 10 to 19)
15
40% (10 to 60%)
83%
Conclusion:
Oncologists’ estimates of severe chemotherapy-
related toxicity differed from the risk as estimated by the
CARG Score. Actual rates of severe toxicity are awaited to
determine which method is more accurate at estimating risk.
References:
[1] Hurria A, Mohile S, Gajra A, Klepin H, Muss H, Chapman
A, et al. Validation of a Prediction Tool for Chemotherapy
Toxicity in Older Adults With Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016.
[2] Hurria A, Togawa K, Mohile SG, Owusu C, Klepin HD, Gross
CP, et al. Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults
with cancer: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol.
2011;29(25):3457-65.
Disclosure of interest:
None declared
Keywords:
Chemotherapy toxicity, elderly, Geriatric
assessment, prediction models
P126
IMPACT OF A WEEKLY MULTIDISCIPLINARY GERIATRIC
ONCOLOGY MEETING ON THERAPEUTIC MANAGEMENT OF
OLDER PATIENTS WITH CANCER
R. Moor
1,
*, P. Cornette
2
, V. Verschaeve
3
, G. Debugne
4
,
Y. Humblet
5
, I. Gilard
2
, I. Clement Corral
6
, P. Betomvuko
6
,
R. Poletto
7
, N. Nols
8
, F. Blancke
9
, F. Cornélis
5
1
Geriatric Oncology,
2
Geriatrics, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc,
Bruxelles,
3
Medical Oncology, Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi,
4
Geriatrics, Centre Hospitalier de Mouscron, Mouscron,
5
Medical
Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Bruxelles,
6
Geriatrics,
7
Geriatric Oncology, Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi,
8
Hematology,
9
Geriatric Oncology, Centre Hospitalier de Mouscron,
Mouscron, Belgium
Introduction:
Close collaboration between oncologists
and geriatricians is recommended for optimal care of older
patients with cancer. For this purpose, we created a weekly
Multidisciplinary Geriatric Oncology Meeting (MGOM).
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to assess the impact
of a weekly
MGOM on therapeutic management of older
patients with cancer.
Methods:
Multicenter (N=3) observational study including
patients
70y with cancer for whom anticancer therapy
was considered. Patients with a G8 score
14 underwent a
multidimensional Geriatric Assessment (GA). Each patient
with GA was discussed at a weekly MGOM gathering at least
a geriatrician, an oncologist and a GO care coordinator. A
personalized Geriatric Oncology (GO) care plan (including
opinionontheproposedanticancer therapyandrecommended
geriatric interventions) was addressed to treating physicians.
Implementation of the care plan was actively coordinated.
Three months after MGOM a follow-up was performed. At
each step of this pathway data were prospectively collected
and statistical analysis was performed.
Results:
From March 2013 until February 2015, 1310
patients were screened. G8 score was
14 in 895 (68.3%) of
them. Among these patients mean age was 81.4±6.0 years,
56.6% were female, 88.5% lived at home and 55.0% had
professional help/care at home at baseline. Cancer was newly
diagnosed in 83.5% and stage-IV disease in 35.4% of patients.
Chemotherapy was the most frequently proposed treatment
(43.8% of patients). Patients took on average 6.4±3.6 different
drugs per day. Mean ADL- and IADL-scores were 9.2±4.5 (Katz
scale, /24) and 4.6±2.6 (Lawton scale, /8) respectively. Two
fifths (39.3%) of patients experienced at least one fall during
the past year. Mean Timed Up and Go was 16.6±9.5 seconds.
MMSE and GDS-15 scores were abnormal in 13.8% and 28.2% of
patients respectively. Malnutrition or risk of malnutrition was
present in 84.9% of patients. Mean ZBI-12 score was 9.7±7.7.
Geriatric problems were detected in 97.8% of patients by GA.
On average 2.9±1.3 geriatric advices per patient were given.
MGOM suggested a modification of the treatment proposition
in 18.0% of patients. At follow-up, 85.0% of patients had at
least one suggested advice implemented. The mean number
of implemented advices per patient was 2.4±1.2. Only in 2.1%
of patients, MGOM’s opinion on anticancer therapy was not
followed by the patient’s treating cancer specialist.
Conclusion:
The organization of a weekly MGOM is feasible
and facilitates the close collaboration between oncologists
and geriatricians. In a population of old and frail cancer
patients, MGOM leads to a personalized GO care plan with
a high level of implemented geriatric advices. This care plan
suggested adaptation of cancer therapy in nearly a fifth of
patients.Wenoticed a high level of acceptance of the opinions
formulated in MGOM.
Disclosure of interest:
None declared
Keywords:
Cancer, geriatric advices, geriatric assessment,
multidisciplinary meeting
P127
DOES THE VULNERABLE ELDERS SURVEY (VES-13)
CORRELATE WITH THE PRESENCE OF GERIATRIC
ISSUES AND SYNDROMES IN OLDER ADULTS WITH
GENITOURINARY CANCER?
R. Jin
1,
*, A. Loucks
1
, M. Puts
2
, P. Savage
1
, T. Stuart-McEwan
1
,
S. Alibhai
1
1
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre,
2
University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada
Introduction:
The VES-13 is a screening tool which is
effective in identifying vulnerable patients which may not