Association between chronological age and geriatric assessment (GA) to identify deficits in elderly adults with cancer: Findings from the Care Registry.

Abstract

12048 Background: Although ASCO and NCCN guidelines recommend that adults with cancer diagnosed at age ≥65y undergo a GA, the association between chronologic age and GA identified deficits remains understudied, and thus, the appropriate age cut-off for employing GA in clinical settings remains unknown. We addressed this gap by examining the association between chronologic age and GA deficits in older adults with cancer. Methods: The Cancer and Aging Resilience Evaluation (CARE) is an ongoing prospective registry of older adults (≥60y) with cancer at a single site. Eligible patients underwent a patient-reported GA adapted from the Cancer and Aging Research Group. The association between age categories (10y increments) and presence of GA deficits was tested using chi-squared tests of trend. Linear association between age and GA deficits was examined using Pearson correlation. Results: The median age at enrollment was 70y (60-96) for 08 participants; 58% were male. Most common cancer types were colorectal (27%), pancreatic (17%), and hepatobiliary (12%). No significant correlation was found between chronologic age and the number of GA deficits (r = 0.03). There was no association between the youngest (60-70y) vs. the oldest age groups (≥80y) with respect to the prevalence of GA deficits: frailty (33% vs. 33%, p= 0.97); impairment of activities of daily living (ADL) (20% vs. 16%, p= 0.7);impairment of instrumental ADL (50% vs 60%, p= 0.3); malnutrition (42% vs. 33%, p =0.4), cognitive impairment (8% vs. 6%, p= 0.6), falls (19% vs. 30%, p 0.1), anxiety (19% vs. 11%, p= 0.1) and depression (13.4% vs. 13.7%, p= 0.2) (Table). Prevalence of 3+ comorbidities was higher in the older patients (45% vs. 59%, p= 0.03). Conclusions: In our cohort of older adults with mostly gastrointestinal malignancies, age was not associated with GA identified deficits and the prevalence of most impairments was similar across age-groups. The use of chronologic age alone to identify which patients may benefit from GA is problematic, and adults 60yrs and above, or perhaps even younger, may derive benefits from a GA. [Table: see text]