How do oncologists make decisions about chemotherapy for their older patients with cancer? A survey of Australian oncologists
Purpose Oncologists are making treatment decisions on increasing numbers of older patients with cancer. Due to comorbidities and frailty that increase with age, such decisions are often complex. We determined factors influencing oncologists’ decisions to prescribe chemotherapy for older adults. Meth...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Supportive care in cancer 2018-02, Vol.26 (2), p.451-460 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 460 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 451 |
container_title | Supportive care in cancer |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Moth, E. B. Kiely, B. E. Naganathan, V. Martin, A. Blinman, P. |
description | Purpose
Oncologists are making treatment decisions on increasing numbers of older patients with cancer. Due to comorbidities and frailty that increase with age, such decisions are often complex. We determined factors influencing oncologists’ decisions to prescribe chemotherapy for older adults.
Methods
Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) were invited to complete an online survey in February to April 2016.
Results
Ninety-three oncologists completed the survey of which 69 (74%) were consultants and 24 (26%) were trainees, with most (72, 77%) working predominantly in a public hospital-associated practice. The three highest ranked factors influencing decisions about (a) adjuvant chemotherapy were performance status, survival benefit of treatment, and life expectancy in the absence of cancer and about (b) palliative chemotherapy were performance status, patient preference, and quality of life. Most geriatric health domains are reportedly assessed routinely by the majority of respondents, though few routinely use geriatric screening tools (14%) or geriatric assessments (5%). In hypothetical patient scenarios, oncologists were less likely to prescribe palliative and adjuvant chemotherapy as age and rates of severe toxicity increased.
Conclusion
Performance status was the most influential factor for oncologists when making a decision about chemotherapy for their older patients, and the importance of other factors differed according to treatment intent. Oncologists were less likely to recommend chemotherapy as patient age and treatment toxicity increased. The low uptake of geriatric assessments or screening tools provides scope for improved clinical assessment of older adults in treatment decision-making. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00520-017-3843-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1984359685</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A521356881</galeid><sourcerecordid>A521356881</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-25bbb9c35030f9359322f66d22b03941a36b9c968b0df189c9148bd0bc2efedd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kctu1DAUhi1URIfCA7CpLHWd4kucxKtqVAFFqsQG1pYvxzMuiT21k1az4N1xNQVaqcgLH_n837n4R-gDJeeUkP5jIUQw0hDaN3xoeUNeoRVtOW96zuURWhHZ0qblQhyjt6XckCrsBXuDjtnQ9x1t5Qr9ukr32CWcok1j2oQyFzzpn4Ad2FBCigVrk5YZ2y1Mad5C1rs99injGoeM0-gg452eA8SK3od5i62OFvIFXuOy5DvY4-Txeilz1mPQ8Wmrd-i112OB94_3Cfrx-dP3y6vm-tuXr5fr68a2XM4NE8YYabkgnHjJheSM-a5zjBnC646adzUtu8EQ5-lQQ9oOxhFjGXhwjp-gs0PdXU63C5RZ3aQlx9pSUVl_TlRW_FNt9AgqRJ_qyHYKxaq1YJSLbhhoVZ2_oKrHwRRsiuBDfX8G0ANgcyolg1e7HCad94oS9eCjOvioqj3qwUdFKnP6OPBiJnB_iT_GVQE7CEpNxQ3kJxv9t-pvrTOoeQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1984359685</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How do oncologists make decisions about chemotherapy for their older patients with cancer? A survey of Australian oncologists</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Moth, E. B. ; Kiely, B. E. ; Naganathan, V. ; Martin, A. ; Blinman, P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Moth, E. B. ; Kiely, B. E. ; Naganathan, V. ; Martin, A. ; Blinman, P.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Oncologists are making treatment decisions on increasing numbers of older patients with cancer. Due to comorbidities and frailty that increase with age, such decisions are often complex. We determined factors influencing oncologists’ decisions to prescribe chemotherapy for older adults.
Methods
Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) were invited to complete an online survey in February to April 2016.
Results
Ninety-three oncologists completed the survey of which 69 (74%) were consultants and 24 (26%) were trainees, with most (72, 77%) working predominantly in a public hospital-associated practice. The three highest ranked factors influencing decisions about (a) adjuvant chemotherapy were performance status, survival benefit of treatment, and life expectancy in the absence of cancer and about (b) palliative chemotherapy were performance status, patient preference, and quality of life. Most geriatric health domains are reportedly assessed routinely by the majority of respondents, though few routinely use geriatric screening tools (14%) or geriatric assessments (5%). In hypothetical patient scenarios, oncologists were less likely to prescribe palliative and adjuvant chemotherapy as age and rates of severe toxicity increased.
Conclusion
Performance status was the most influential factor for oncologists when making a decision about chemotherapy for their older patients, and the importance of other factors differed according to treatment intent. Oncologists were less likely to recommend chemotherapy as patient age and treatment toxicity increased. The low uptake of geriatric assessments or screening tools provides scope for improved clinical assessment of older adults in treatment decision-making.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0941-4355</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-7339</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00520-017-3843-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28776149</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Activities of daily living ; Adjuvant chemotherapy ; Adult ; Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Australia ; Cancer ; Cancer patients ; Care and treatment ; Chemotherapy ; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant - methods ; Clinical decision making ; Comorbidity ; Consulting services ; Decision Making ; Elderly patients ; Female ; Geriatric Assessment ; Geriatrics ; Humans ; Male ; Medical Oncology - methods ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Nursing ; Nursing Research ; Older people ; Oncologists - psychology ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Pain Medicine ; Patient Preference ; Patients ; Physicians ; Quality of Life ; Rehabilitation Medicine ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Supportive care in cancer, 2018-02, Vol.26 (2), p.451-460</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Springer</rights><rights>Supportive Care in Cancer is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-25bbb9c35030f9359322f66d22b03941a36b9c968b0df189c9148bd0bc2efedd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-25bbb9c35030f9359322f66d22b03941a36b9c968b0df189c9148bd0bc2efedd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6251-0741</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00520-017-3843-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00520-017-3843-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28776149$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moth, E. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kiely, B. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naganathan, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blinman, P.</creatorcontrib><title>How do oncologists make decisions about chemotherapy for their older patients with cancer? A survey of Australian oncologists</title><title>Supportive care in cancer</title><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><description>Purpose
Oncologists are making treatment decisions on increasing numbers of older patients with cancer. Due to comorbidities and frailty that increase with age, such decisions are often complex. We determined factors influencing oncologists’ decisions to prescribe chemotherapy for older adults.
Methods
Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) were invited to complete an online survey in February to April 2016.
Results
Ninety-three oncologists completed the survey of which 69 (74%) were consultants and 24 (26%) were trainees, with most (72, 77%) working predominantly in a public hospital-associated practice. The three highest ranked factors influencing decisions about (a) adjuvant chemotherapy were performance status, survival benefit of treatment, and life expectancy in the absence of cancer and about (b) palliative chemotherapy were performance status, patient preference, and quality of life. Most geriatric health domains are reportedly assessed routinely by the majority of respondents, though few routinely use geriatric screening tools (14%) or geriatric assessments (5%). In hypothetical patient scenarios, oncologists were less likely to prescribe palliative and adjuvant chemotherapy as age and rates of severe toxicity increased.
Conclusion
Performance status was the most influential factor for oncologists when making a decision about chemotherapy for their older patients, and the importance of other factors differed according to treatment intent. Oncologists were less likely to recommend chemotherapy as patient age and treatment toxicity increased. The low uptake of geriatric assessments or screening tools provides scope for improved clinical assessment of older adults in treatment decision-making.</description><subject>Activities of daily living</subject><subject>Adjuvant chemotherapy</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer patients</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Chemotherapy, Adjuvant - methods</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Comorbidity</subject><subject>Consulting services</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Elderly patients</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Geriatric Assessment</subject><subject>Geriatrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical Oncology - methods</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing Research</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Oncologists - psychology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Patient Preference</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Rehabilitation Medicine</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0941-4355</issn><issn>1433-7339</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kctu1DAUhi1URIfCA7CpLHWd4kucxKtqVAFFqsQG1pYvxzMuiT21k1az4N1xNQVaqcgLH_n837n4R-gDJeeUkP5jIUQw0hDaN3xoeUNeoRVtOW96zuURWhHZ0qblQhyjt6XckCrsBXuDjtnQ9x1t5Qr9ukr32CWcok1j2oQyFzzpn4Ad2FBCigVrk5YZ2y1Mad5C1rs99injGoeM0-gg452eA8SK3od5i62OFvIFXuOy5DvY4-Txeilz1mPQ8Wmrd-i112OB94_3Cfrx-dP3y6vm-tuXr5fr68a2XM4NE8YYabkgnHjJheSM-a5zjBnC646adzUtu8EQ5-lQQ9oOxhFjGXhwjp-gs0PdXU63C5RZ3aQlx9pSUVl_TlRW_FNt9AgqRJ_qyHYKxaq1YJSLbhhoVZ2_oKrHwRRsiuBDfX8G0ANgcyolg1e7HCad94oS9eCjOvioqj3qwUdFKnP6OPBiJnB_iT_GVQE7CEpNxQ3kJxv9t-pvrTOoeQ</recordid><startdate>20180201</startdate><enddate>20180201</enddate><creator>Moth, E. B.</creator><creator>Kiely, B. E.</creator><creator>Naganathan, V.</creator><creator>Martin, A.</creator><creator>Blinman, P.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6251-0741</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180201</creationdate><title>How do oncologists make decisions about chemotherapy for their older patients with cancer? A survey of Australian oncologists</title><author>Moth, E. B. ; Kiely, B. E. ; Naganathan, V. ; Martin, A. ; Blinman, P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-25bbb9c35030f9359322f66d22b03941a36b9c968b0df189c9148bd0bc2efedd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Activities of daily living</topic><topic>Adjuvant chemotherapy</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer patients</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Chemotherapy, Adjuvant - methods</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Comorbidity</topic><topic>Consulting services</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Elderly patients</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Geriatric Assessment</topic><topic>Geriatrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical Oncology - methods</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing Research</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Oncologists - psychology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Patient Preference</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Rehabilitation Medicine</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moth, E. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kiely, B. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naganathan, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blinman, P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moth, E. B.</au><au>Kiely, B. E.</au><au>Naganathan, V.</au><au>Martin, A.</au><au>Blinman, P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How do oncologists make decisions about chemotherapy for their older patients with cancer? A survey of Australian oncologists</atitle><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle><stitle>Support Care Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><date>2018-02-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>451</spage><epage>460</epage><pages>451-460</pages><issn>0941-4355</issn><eissn>1433-7339</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Oncologists are making treatment decisions on increasing numbers of older patients with cancer. Due to comorbidities and frailty that increase with age, such decisions are often complex. We determined factors influencing oncologists’ decisions to prescribe chemotherapy for older adults.
Methods
Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) were invited to complete an online survey in February to April 2016.
Results
Ninety-three oncologists completed the survey of which 69 (74%) were consultants and 24 (26%) were trainees, with most (72, 77%) working predominantly in a public hospital-associated practice. The three highest ranked factors influencing decisions about (a) adjuvant chemotherapy were performance status, survival benefit of treatment, and life expectancy in the absence of cancer and about (b) palliative chemotherapy were performance status, patient preference, and quality of life. Most geriatric health domains are reportedly assessed routinely by the majority of respondents, though few routinely use geriatric screening tools (14%) or geriatric assessments (5%). In hypothetical patient scenarios, oncologists were less likely to prescribe palliative and adjuvant chemotherapy as age and rates of severe toxicity increased.
Conclusion
Performance status was the most influential factor for oncologists when making a decision about chemotherapy for their older patients, and the importance of other factors differed according to treatment intent. Oncologists were less likely to recommend chemotherapy as patient age and treatment toxicity increased. The low uptake of geriatric assessments or screening tools provides scope for improved clinical assessment of older adults in treatment decision-making.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>28776149</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00520-017-3843-0</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6251-0741</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0941-4355 |
ispartof | Supportive care in cancer, 2018-02, Vol.26 (2), p.451-460 |
issn | 0941-4355 1433-7339 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1984359685 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Activities of daily living Adjuvant chemotherapy Adult Age Factors Aged Aged, 80 and over Australia Cancer Cancer patients Care and treatment Chemotherapy Chemotherapy, Adjuvant - methods Clinical decision making Comorbidity Consulting services Decision Making Elderly patients Female Geriatric Assessment Geriatrics Humans Male Medical Oncology - methods Medical research Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neoplasms - drug therapy Nursing Nursing Research Older people Oncologists - psychology Oncology Original Article Pain Medicine Patient Preference Patients Physicians Quality of Life Rehabilitation Medicine Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires Young Adult |
title | How do oncologists make decisions about chemotherapy for their older patients with cancer? A survey of Australian oncologists |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T04%3A58%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20do%20oncologists%20make%20decisions%20about%20chemotherapy%20for%20their%20older%20patients%20with%20cancer?%20A%20survey%20of%20Australian%20oncologists&rft.jtitle=Supportive%20care%20in%20cancer&rft.au=Moth,%20E.%20B.&rft.date=2018-02-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=451&rft.epage=460&rft.pages=451-460&rft.issn=0941-4355&rft.eissn=1433-7339&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00520-017-3843-0&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA521356881%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1984359685&rft_id=info:pmid/28776149&rft_galeid=A521356881&rfr_iscdi=true |