Implementing the cancer and aging research group (CARG) tool in the ambulatory oncology setting to drive informed treatment selection.

Abstract

209 Background: Smilow Cancer Hospital is a NCI designated cancer center in Connecticut that has built a network of 15 community-based oncology (CBO) clinics. Older patients present with unique clinical challenges including multiple comorbidities, decreased functional status, and cognitive impairment. ASCO Geriatric Oncology guidelines recommend completing both a comprehensive geriatric assessment and a chemotherapy toxicity risk assessment on all oncology patients ≥65 years old for informed treatment selection. The CARG calculator is a simple, validated tool to assess chemotherapy toxicity risk in older patients with solid tumors. Despite ASCO guidelines, the existence of validated tools, and literature confirming improved patient outcomes, oncologists’ utilization of risk calculators is limited; therefore, we conducted a pilot CARG quality improvement initiative throughout our CBO network. Methods: 36 CBO physicians agreed to complete five CARG tools, document toxicity scores in the EMR, and complete a post-survey between March and June 2021. PDSA cycles included interventions of a hyperlink to the CARG tool incorporated in the EMR and creating a dot phrase built to simplify documentation. Education was provided on both the CARG and the survey. The survey captured perceived clinical value, time commitment, and barriers to implementation. Baseline data was collected during February 2021 and included geriatric patients receiving a new chemotherapy regimen for a solid tumor. Results: 180 consecutive new chemotherapy starts in geriatric patients were monitored. The CARG score utilization in new chemotherapy starts increased from 6.5% of new cases during the first month, to 26.4% in the third month. 82% of providers found the CARG score helpful in discussing chemotherapy risks with patients. In 32% of cases, the CARG score led to a decision to dose attenuate, and in 15% of cases, the CARG score led to a different treatment regimen. Most oncologists (65%) reported spending ≤5 minutes calculating toxicity, and 88% spent ≤10 minutes. 89% of oncologists reported the CARG score was worth the added time. Conclusions: This QI initiative demonstrates feasibility and increased use of the CARG geriatric chemotherapy toxicity tool in accordance with ASCO geriatric guideline-based care. Physician education and EMR workflow modification were utilized. In the CBO setting, oncologists found the CARG tool to be quick and helpful in discussing treatment risks with patients. Use of the CARG tool led to meaningful changes in treatment, including chemotherapy dose attenuation. Further study metrics such as palliative and supportive care referrals, ED visits, and hospitalizations will fuel sustainability.