How an Oncologist's Intuition Compares to a Geriatric Assessment

A geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended before treating older cancer patients. The goal of this study was to investigate if the additional information from a GA and discussion by a multidisciplinary board (MB) change the treatment recommendations.

Older cancer patients (n = 421) were prospectively assessed by an oncologist for eligibility for chemotherapy. A multidimensional GA was performed and a discussion about each patient was held by a MB including a geriatrician. Differences between the judgment made by the oncologist, that of the MB, and the Balducci classification were examined. A statistical model of the MB decision-making process was established and evaluated.

The treating oncologist and the MB judged 12 and 15% of the patients as frail, 41 and 38% as vulnerable, and 46 and 47% as fit. Overall, 83% agreement was observed. Based on the Balducci classification, 55% of the patients were frail, 30% were vulnerable, and 15% were fit. Only 34% of congruency with the oncologist's judgment was observed. In a 2-stage logistics model, activities of daily living and the Mini-Mental-State Examination (MMSE) proved most suitable for identifying frail patients. Tinetti's test, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, living alone, the MMSE, and the Mini-Nutritional Assessment fitted best to distinguish between vulnerable and fit.

Regarding the decision of systemic treatment for older patients, the judgment by an experienced oncologist was comparable to that of an MB and both were significantly different from the Balducci classification. For some patients, the additional discussion of GA data in an MB may change treatment decisions.