Pilot Study for Feasibility of Onco-Geriatric Intervention Model in Older Patients with Cancer in a Tertiary Academic Hospital

Jin Won Kim; Jung-Yeon Choi; Woochan Park; Minsu Kang; Jeongmin Seo; Eun Hee Jung; Koung Jin Suh; Ji-Won Kim; Se Hyun Kim; Yu Jung Kim; Keun-Wook Lee; Sang-A Kim; Ji Yun Lee; Jeong-Ok Lee; Soo-Mee Bang; Kwang-il Kim; Jee Hyun Kim

doi:10.4143/crt.2025.079

Articles

Page Path: HOME > J Korean Cancer Assoc > Ahead-of print articles > Article

Original Article Pilot Study for Feasibility of Onco-Geriatric Intervention Model in Older Patients with Cancer in a Tertiary Academic Hospital: Jin Won Kim¹, Jung-Yeon Choi², Woochan Park¹, Minsu Kang¹, Jeongmin Seo¹, Eun Hee Jung¹, Koung Jin Suh¹, Ji-Won Kim¹, Se Hyun Kim¹, Yu Jung Kim¹, Keun-Wook Lee¹, Sang-A Kim¹, Ji Yun Lee¹, Jeong-Ok Lee¹, Soo-Mee Bang¹, Kwang-il Kim², Jee Hyun Kim^1,3,; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2025.079
Published online: March 12, 2025

¹Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

²Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

³Department of Genomic Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

Correspondence: Jee Hyun Kim, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 82 Gumi-ro 173 beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13620, Korea
Tel: 82-31-787-7022 E-mail: jhkimmd@snu.ac.kr

• Received: January 20, 2025 • Accepted: March 11, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1,131 Views
38 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Older cancer patients face unique challenges due to age-related physiological changes, increasing their vulnerability to treatment-related toxicities. Geriatric assessment (GA) is a validated tool for optimizing care, yet there is no consensus on integrating geriatric interventions into oncology. This study evaluates the feasibility of a tailored onco-geriatric intervention model incorporating the KG-7 screening tool.
Materials and Methods
This prospective study included 30 patients aged ≥ 70 years with solid tumors undergoing adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy. Patients scoring ≤ 5 of KG-7 were eligible. Tailored interventions incorporating KG-7 included polypharmacy, functional status, mobility, nutrition, cognition, emotional well-being, insomnia, social support, and medical problem. KG-7, GA, and quality of life (QoL) were followed at 12 weeks.
Results
Participants (median age, 79.5 years) had colon (43.3%), pancreatic (23.3%), or gastric cancer (23.3%). At baseline, most patients showed independent activities of daily living (100%)/instrumental activities of daily living (90%). However, 93.3% had abnormal GA. Particularly, 86.7% were either malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. The most frequently identified intervention needs included polypharmacy (70.0%), nutritional support (60.0%), and emotional well-being (50.0%) with high adherence (100.0%, 88.9%, and 46.7%, respectively). At 12 weeks, KG-7 scores improved in 43.8% of patients, and 69.2% of GA domains were improved. QoL analysis revealed modest improvement in Global Health Status (mean difference, 6.3; p=0.176). One-year survival rates were 92.3% and 79.4% for adjuvant and palliative groups, respectively.
Conclusion
The onco-geriatric intervention model incorporating KG-7 demonstrated high feasibility and potential to enhance clinical outcomes. Future studies should validate this approach in randomized trials to optimize care for older cancer patients.
Key words: KG-7, Intervention, Geriatric assessment

Introduction

Older cancer patients exhibit distinct physical, emotio-nal, cognitive, and nutritional characteristics compared to younger patients. They have reduced resilience to internal and external stressors, making them more vulnerable to adverse events from cancer treatment. Therefore, cancer treatment in older adults presents unique challenges due to age-related physiological changes, including reduced organ function and diminished metabolic reserves [1-5]. These changes increase the risk of chemotherapy-induced toxicities, necessitating a tailored approach to care.

Geriatric assessment (GA) is an objective tool that provides a comprehensive evaluation of the overall health status in older populations. Studies have shown that GA can predict life expectancy, chemotherapy compliance, postoperative mortality, early death, and chemotherapy-related adverse effects in older patients receiving chemotherapy [4-10]. Global guidelines recommend incorporating GA into cancer treatment for older patients to optimize care and improve outcomes [2,11]. Furthermore, geriatric oncology invention trials have been conducted to evaluate clinical efficacy of geriatric intervention and to find effective geriatric intervention model [7,12-17]. However, the results of these trial were not consistent and geriatric models were diverse. There is no consensus on the optimal approach to implement interventions based on GA into routine oncology care, and geriatric intervention models for older cancer patients are scarce. Moreover, geriatric intervention models should accommodate wide variety of healthcare system, necessitating different models according to different healthcare system.

To bridge this gap, we designed a tailored onco-geriatric intervention model incorporating a geriatric screening tool (KG-7) to identify patients in need of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and focused interventions. These interventions include addressing polypharmacy, functional status, mobility/fall risk, nutritional support, cognitive function, emotional well-being, insomnia, social and family support, and medical problem, with the aim of improving patients’ quality of life (QoL) and survival outcomes. We evaluated the feasibility of this onco-geriatric intervention model with KG-7, suitable for high-volume cancer centers with low resource setting.

Materials and Methods

1. Study design

This single-center, prospective feasibility study was conducted at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Korea. The primary objective was to assess the feasibility of an onco-geriatric intervention model tailored for older cancer patients undergoing adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy. This feasibility study evaluates the practicality and impact of this intervention model. Specifically, it aims to (1) identify the types and prevalence of required interventions, (2) assess compliance, and (3) evaluate changes in KG-7, GA, and QoL, and survival. All participants received standard cancer care, supplemented with tailored onco-geriatric interventions based on individual needs identified through screening and assessment of KG-7.

2. Participants

Participants were recruited based on the following inclusion criteria: age ≥ 70 years, histologically confirmed diagnosis of a solid tumor, scheduled for adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy, expected survival of ≥ 3 months for a sufficient follow-up period, able to understand the study and provide written informed consent. Eligible participants were screened using the KG-7, a validated geriatric screening tool developed to predict the need for CGA. Patients scoring ≤ 5 on the KG-7 were finally enrolled. Exclusion criteria included patients younger than 70 years, those diagnosed with non-cancer conditions, and those who did not exhibit the geriatric phenotype to need further GA and geriatric intervention, despite a KG-7 score ≤ 5.

3. Patient assessment

KG-7 questionnaire was always answered before full GA. KG-7 consisted of seven questions evenly distributed to represent each domain of GA. KG-7 scores ranged from 0 to 7, and higher scores indicated better conditions [18,19]. As in our previous studies, GA consisted of an evaluation of medical problems, social support, functional status, cognitive status, emotional status, nutritional status, and mobility [5,9,10,18,19]. Additionally, muscle strength was assessed by the handgrip strength in the dominant hand with the patient in the sitting position with elbows flexed at 90°. Handgrip strength (kg) was measured using the Jamar Plus+ Digital Hand Dynamometer (Sammons Preston) in sitting position; a maximum of two measurements from the dominant hand were recorded. We adopted cut-off values of handgrip strength (< 28.6 and < 16.4 kg in men and women, respectively) for the definition of low grip strength based on data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey VI [20]. The functional status was tested using the activities of daily living (ADL) and Korean instrument activities of daily living (K-IADL) scores [18,21]. At least one item with dependency in ADL or K-IADL was categorized as ADL-dependent or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL)–dependent, respectively. Timed get-up-and-go test (TUGT) of greater than 20 seconds was defined as impaired mobility [22]. Cognitive function was tested using Mini-Mental Status Examination in the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Packet (MMSE-KC), which was categorized into severe cognitive impairment (scores ≤ 16) and mild cognitive impairment (scores 17-24) [23]. For depression, short-form Geriatric Depression Scale (SGDS) scores of 5 to 9 and of 10 or more showed mild depression and severe depression, respectively [24]. In terms of nutritional status, the mini nutritional assessment (MNA) score of less than 17.0 and between 17.0 and 23.5 indicated malnutrition and at risk of malnutrition, respectively [25]. GA was evaluated by clinical research coordinators who underwent appropriate education for the standardization of GA. Abnormal GA was defined as deficits in at least two out of six domains (ADL, K-IADL, MMSE-KC, SGDS, MNA, and TUGT) [5,8,18]. QoL was measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30. KG-7, GA, and QoL were assessed at baseline and 12 weeks.

4. Geriatric intervention model

The onco-geriatric intervention model was designed to address specific geriatric domains identified through KG-7 and clinical practice. The interventions were based on a standardized checklist, with the following components (Table 1).

(1) Polypharmacy: Inappropriate medication use was assessed using Beers criteria and New Beers criteria. Recommendations for medication adjustments and counseling were provided to reduce the number of inappropriate medications.

(2) Functional status: For patients dependent in ADL or IADL, interventions included regular telephone follow-ups and, if necessary, referrals to social work services. The goal was to maintain functional independence.

(3) Mobility and fall risk: Patients with a history of falls within the past 6 months or those with delayed mobility responses (TUGT > 20 seconds) were referred to physical therapy for fall prevention strategies and mobility training.

(4) Nutritional status: Malnutrition was assessed using the MNA (≤ 17). Patients with unintentional weight loss of ≥ 5% over the past 3 months were provided with dietary counseling and supplementation.

(5) Cognitive function: Patients scoring ≤ 23 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were identified as having cognitive impairment and referred to psychiatry for further evaluation and management.

(6) Emotional Well-being: Depression was assessed using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15 ≥ 6). Patients identified with depressive symptoms were referred to psychiatry for management.

(7) Insomnia: When subjectively reported, was managed through counseling, pharmacological treatment, or referrals to psychiatry.

(8) Social and family support: Patients living alone or with insufficient support networks were referred to social work services. Emergency contact networks were also established to enhance treatment adherence and support.

(9) Medical problems: Uncontrolled comorbidities were managed through medication adjustments and specialist referrals as needed.

5. Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics and intervention prevalence were summarized using descriptive statistics. Baseline and the 12-week follow-up comparisons of KG-7, GA, and QoL were analyzed using paired t tests. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate 1-year survival, with group comparisons performed using the log-rank test.

Results

1. Baseline characteristics and GA

A total of 30 older patients with cancer were enrolled in the study between August 2020 and November 2021. The median age was 79.5 years (range, 71 to 87 years), and 63.3% of the patients were female. The most common cancer type was colon cancer (43.3%), followed by pancreatic cancer (23.3%) and gastric cancer (23.3%). In terms of clinical setting, 60% of patients were receiving palliative chemotherapy, while the remaining 40% were undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy.

Regarding GA, as measured by the KG-7 score, 63.3% and 23.3% of patients scored 4 and 5, respectively. Thirteen patients (43.3%) had low grip strength. Baseline functional assessments revealed that no patients had dependent ADL, while 10% exhibited dependency in IADL. MMSE revealed that 53.3% of participants had mild cognitive impairment (MMSE score 17-24), while 3.3% had severe cognitive impairment (MMSE score ≤ 16). Depression was identified in 53.3% of patients, with 50.0% exhibiting mild symptoms (SGDS score 5-9) and 3.3% showing severe depression (SGDS score ≥ 10). Nutritional assessments indicated that 76.7% of patients were at risk of malnutrition (MNA score 17-23.5), and 10.0% were classified as malnutrition (MNA score < 17). Mobility impairments, assessed by the TUGT test, were present in 46.7% of participants (TUGT > 20 seconds). Additionally, 93.3% of patients showed abnormalities in at least two GA domains, highlighting the high prevalence of vulnerabilities in this cohort (Table 2).

2. Intervention need and adherence

The most frequently identified intervention need was polypharmacy, observed in 21 patients (70.0%), all of whom adhered to the recommended medication adjustments. Nutritional support was the second most common need, identified in 18 patients (60.0%) with an adherence rate of 88.9%. Interventions targeting cognitive function and emotional well-being were required in 33.3% and 50.0% of patients, respectively, with varying adherence rates (Table 3). Mobility interventions were necessary for 20.0% of patients, but compliance was lower at 33.3%. Overall, the intervention model demonstrated high feasibility, with adherence rates exceeding 85% in the majority of intervention.

3. Correlation between intervention need and GA deficit

Among the 17 patients identified with MMSE deficits, seven (41.2%) required interventions to address cognitive function. Similarly, 10 out of 16 patients (62.5%) with GDS deficits were identified as needing support for emotional well-being. In 16 out of 26 patients (61.5%) presenting MNA deficits, nutritional interventions were required. Lastly, two out of 14 patients (14.3%) with mobility deficits required targeted interventions of mobility and fall risk to improve their physical function and reduce fall risk (Fig. 1). Patients with deficits in cognitive function (MMSE), depression (GDS), nutritional status (MNA), and mobility (TUGT) were more likely to require multiple interventions. For instance, patients with MNA deficits also required polypharmacy intervention, emotional intervention, cognitive function, insomnia, mobility/fall risk as well as nutritional status, highlighting the link between nutritional status and other geriatric domain.

4. Changes in KG-7, GA, and QoL between baseline and the 12-week follow-up

Among the total cohort of 30 patients, 14 patients were lost to follow-up, resulting in incomplete data at the 12-week assessment. The reasons for drop-out included consent withdrawal (6), follow-up loss (2), inability to visit (2), early death before 12-week assessment (2), refuse for chemotherapy (1), and transfer to hospice (1). All 16 patients who remained in the study at the 12-week follow-up were still receiving chemotherapy. Consequently, 16 patients were included in the analysis of changes in KG-7, 13 in the analysis of GA, and 16 in the evaluation of QoL. The analysis of changes in KG-7 scores showed that, among 16 patients, one patient (6.3%) demonstrated a +3-point improvement, two patients (12.5%) showed a +2-point improvement, and four patients (25.0%) had a +1-point improvement. Meanwhile, eight patients (50.0%) showed no change, and one patient (6.3%) experienced a –2-point decline. These results indicate that most patients either maintained or improved their KG-7 scores. The detailed information regarding the changes in KG-7 scores is presented in Fig. 2.

The analysis of changes in GA between baseline and the 12-week follow-up revealed varying contributions to GA deficit decreases and increases (Fig. 3). No changes were observed in ADL, while one patient showed additional deficit in IADL. For MMSE, two patients demonstrated improvement, whereas one patient showed additional deficit at the 12-week follow-up. Similarly, one patient had additional deficit in SGDS domain. In terms of MNA, three patients exhibited improvement, while two showed additional deficit. Mobility, as assessed by TUGT, indicated improvement in two patients and new deficit in one. Finally, grip strength showed improvements with two patients and no new deficit at the 12-week follow-up. Overall, nine domains of 13 patients were improved, while six domains were worse.

In QoL change analysis involving 16 patients, Global Health Status/QoL improved from a baseline mean of 53.7 (±13.6) to 59.9 (±20.9) by a mean difference of 6.3 (±17.6), though this was not statistically significant (p=0.176) (Fig. 4). Physical functioning showed a decline with a mean difference of –8.8 (±20.9) (p=0.115), while role functioning dropped by –10.4±26.4 (p=0.136). Emotional functioning exhibited a minor improvement (2.6±30.7, p=0.739), but cognitive functioning and social functioning declined slightly (–7.29±26.5, p=0.289, –4.17±40.1, p=0.684, respectively). While most symptoms such as fatigue (4.51±21.8, p=0.420), nausea/vomiting (4.2±34.7, p=0.638), pain (7.3±27.2, p=0.300), dyspnea (4.2±26.9, p=0.545), insomnia (10.4±35.9, p=0.264), appetite loss (4.17±38.3, p=0.669), and constipation (16.67±38.5, p=0.104) were worse, diarrhea was improved (–4.17±29.5, p=0.581) and financial difficulties showed the most significant reduction (–10.42±26.4, p=0.136). Despite observed changes, no domain reached statistical significance due to low number of patients.

5. Survival

At the 1-year follow-up, the overall survival rate was 92.3% in the adjuvant group and 79.4% in the palliative group (S1 Fig.).

Discussion

This study assessed the feasibility and potential efficacy of an onco-geriatric intervention model incorporating KG-7 for older cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The model utilized the KG-7 screening tool to identify intervention needs, with effects evaluated over a 12-week follow-up period. Given the current lack of conclusive evidence on geriatric interventions, this study provides meaningful insights into their implementation and impact. Pre-planned intervention needs in this study included polypharmacy, functional status, mobility/fall risk, nutritional support, cognitive function, emotional well-being, insomnia, social and family support, and medical problem, consistent with findings from previous studies [12,17,26,27].

By including only patients with KG-7 scores ≤ 5, nearly all participants (93.3%) exhibited abnormal GA results, reflecting their frailty and vulnerability. Polypharmacy management (70%), nutrition support (60%), and emotional well-being management (50%) were frequently identified as intervention need. This finding is in accordance with previous studies [12,27]. Regarding compliance and adherence of interventions, high compliance rates for certain interventions, such as polypharmacy (100%) and nutritional support (88.9%). However, compliance with mobility (33.3%) and emotional well-being interventions (46.7%) was relatively lower. In previous studies, lower adherence rates were also reported, with only 46% of the geriatric recommendations adhered to or adherence rates as low as 52% in some patients [12,28]. Notably, low adherence and compliance may be attributed to the complexity of geriatric syndromes and the variability in intervention feasibility and availability.

In this study, among 17 patients with MMSE deficits, seven (41.2%) required cognitive interventions. Of 16 with SGDS deficits, 10 (62.5%) needed emotional support. Nutritional interventions were necessary for 16 of 26 patients (61.5%) with MNA deficits, while only two of 14 (14.3%) with mobility deficits required targeted mobility interventions. These findings suggest a weak correlation between intervention needs based on KG-7 and clinical practice and GA deficits. Furthermore, the correlations between GA deficits and required interventions underscore the complexity of geriatric syndrome. For instance, patients with nutritional deficits (76.7%) often required additional interventions, such as emotional support and cognitive function management. Similarly, patients with mobility impairments frequently exhibited deficits in other domains, highlighting the cascading impact of physical limitations on emotional well-being. This implicates the interconnected nature of GA domains, where some, like MNA, may reflect multiple symptoms requiring multiple intervention.

At the 12-week follow-up, KG-7 and GA scores showed trends toward improvement. Despite the small sample size and short follow-up duration, QoL analysis demonstrated a slight improvement in Global Health Status (mean difference, 6.3; p=0.176). While most patients maintained their QoL during chemotherapy, some domains, including Role Functioning, insomnia, and constipation, showed worse. These findings highlight the challenges of sustaining QoL in this population. Conversely, financial difficulties improved significantly. Additionally, because all analyzed patients for the 12-week follow-up were still undergoing treatment, potential biases due to chemotherapy discontinuation affecting KG-7 or GA improvements are unlikely. Given the small sample size, these results should be interpreted with caution.

The one-year survival rates were 92.3% in the adjuvant group and 79.4% in the palliative group for a cohort with a median age of 79.5 years and significant geriatric impairment. The one-year survival rate of 79.4% in the palliative group is consistent with survival rates reported in similar general populations with colorectal cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale of performance status 1-2, which was the majority of this study. These outcomes suggest that tailored geriatric interventions may enhance clinical outcomes, consistent with recommendations from organizations like American Society of Clinical Oncology and International Society of Geriatric Oncology, which advocate for incorporating CGAs into routine oncology practice to better stratify patients by risk, predict treatment tolerance, and optimize outcomes [2,29]. Nonetheless, the further studies are needed to validate their impact on long-term survival.

However, this study has some limitations. The small sample size, lack of randomization, and difficulty in objectively measuring intervention compliance limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the short follow-up period restricts the ability to draw conclusions about long-term effects. The improved outcome was challenging to interpret, as it could have resulted from either the interventions or the effectiveness of chemotherapy. In the further study, exploring the causal relationships between GA domains and intervention outcomes could help refine intervention strategies. Another area for improvement involves the development of standardized, scalable protocols to ensure consistency in intervention delivery across diverse clinical settings. Nonetheless, given the increasing need for multidisciplinary approaches in the treatment of older cancer patients, this study highlights the feasibility of an onco-geriatric intervention model tailored to address geriatric-specific vulnerabilities. The positive impact in this trial suggests that structured interventions could enhance clinical outcomes, reinforcing the necessity for integrated oncology and geriatrics care.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that an onco-geriatric intervention model using the KG-7 tool is practical and effective for identifying required intervention in older cancer patients. It provides an onco-geriatric intervention model for integrating geriatric care into routine oncology practice, emphasizing the importance of a personalized, multidimensional approach to improving both clinical outcomes and QoL for this vulnerable older patients receiving chemotherapy. In the further study, this onco-geriatric intervention model incorporating KG-7 should be evaluated and validated through randomized clinical trials.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2025-079_S1_Fig.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

This prospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (No. B-1602-336-701) of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (Seongnam, Korea). The trial was designed and conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and the Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Studies. All participating patients provided written informed consent.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Kim JW (Jin Won Kim), Kim JH.

Collected the data: Kim JW (Jin Won Kim), Kim JH.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Kim JW (Jin Won Kim), Choi JY, Park W, Kang M, Seo J, Jung EH, Suh KJ, Kim JW (Ji-Won Kim), Kim SH, Kim YJ, Lee KW, Kim SA, Lee JY, Lee JO, Bang SM, Kim KI, Kim JH.

Performed the analysis: Kim JW (Jin Won Kim), Kim JH.

Wrote the paper: Kim JW (Jin Won Kim), Choi JY, Park W, Kang M, Seo J, Jung EH, Suh KJ, Kim JW (Ji-Won Kim), Kim SH, Kim YJ, Lee KW, Kim SA, Lee JY, Lee JO, Bang SM, Kim KI, Kim JH.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Funding

This study was fully supported by Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (SNUBH) grant No. 02-2015-0027. This research was partly supported by a grant of Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center (PACEN) funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: RS-2020-KH095186).

Acknowledgments

This study utilized the assistance of AI-based technology (ChatGPT), provided by OpenAI, for statistical analysis, figure generation, and language editing. All content was reviewed and edited by the authors to ensure scientific accuracy and originality.

Fig. 1.

The correlation between intervention need and geriatric assessment deficit. ADL, activities of daily living; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; IADL, instrument activities of daily living; MMSE, Mini-Mental Status Examination; MNA, Mini Nutri tional Assessment; TUGT, timed get-up-and-go test.

Fig. 2.

KG-7 score change between baseline and the 12-week follow-up (F/U).

Fig. 3.

Geriatric assessment deficit change between baseline and the 12-week follow-up (F/U). GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MNA, Mini Nutri tional Assessment; TUGT, timed get-up-and-go test.

Fig. 4.

Quality of life (QoL) change between baseline and the 12-week follow-up (F/U).

Table 1.

Geriatric intervention checklist

Domain	Thresholds for interventions	Standardized interventions	Compliance and assessment
Polypharmacy	Inappropriate medication use, identified by Beers criteria or New Beers criteria	Medication adjustment and counseling	Reduction in the number of inappropriate medications
Functional status	Dependent ADL	Telephone follow-up; referral to social work if necessary	Maintenance of functional capacity
Mobility/Fall risk	Dependent IADL	Telephone follow-up; referral to social work if necessary	Maintenance of functional capacity
	Falls during the last 6 months	Referral to physical therapy	Reduction in fall events
	Timed get-up-and-go test > 20 seconds	Referral to physical therapy	Improvement in mobility and fall risk reduction
Nutritional status	MNA ≤ 17	Nutritional counseling and supplementation	Improvement in MNA score
	Weight loss ≥ 5% in the last 3 months	Nutritional counseling and supplementation	Improvement in weight and MNA score
Cognitive function	Cognitive impairment MMSE ≤ 23	Referral to psychiatry	Improvement in MMSE score
Emotional well-being	Depression identified, GDS-15 ≥ 6	Referral to psychiatry	Improvement in GDS-15 score
Insomnia	Subjective discomfort reported	Prescription of sleep aids or referral to psychiatry	Improvement in reported insomnia symptoms
Social and family support	Living alone	Referral to social work; telephone follow-up	Improved rates of hospital visits and treatment adherence
Medical problems	Uncontrolled comorbidities	Adjust medication; referral to specialists	Resolution of uncontrolled specialistsmedical issues

ADL, activities of daily living; GDS-15, Geriatric Depression Scale; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; MNA, mini nutritional assessment; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination.

Table 2.

Baseline characteristics and geriatric assessment

Variable	No. (%)
Age (yr), median (range)	79.5 (71-87)
70-74	4 (13.3)
75-79	11 (36.7)
80-84	10 (33.3)
≥ 85	5 (16.7)
Sex
Female	19 (63.3)
Male	11 (36.7)
ECOG PS
1	21 (70.0)
2	9 (30.0)
Clinical setting
Adjuvant	12 (40.0)
Palliative	18 (60.0)
Cancer type
Colon cancer	13 (43.3)
Pancreatic cancer	7 (23.3)
Gastric cancer	7 (23.3)
Biliary tract cancer	2 (6.7)
Duodenal cancer	1 (3.3)
KG-7
0	1 (3.3)
1	1 (3.3)
2	1 (3.3)
3	1 (3.3)
4	19 (63.3)
5	7 (23.3)
Grip strength, median (range)	17.5 (10.0-22.2) in female, 25.6 (11.7-31.2) in male
Normal	17 (56.7)
Low (< 28.6 kg [male] and < 16.4 kg [female])	13 (43.3)
Activity of daily living
Independent	30 (100)
Dependent	0
Instrumental activity daily of living
Independent	27 (90.0)
Dependent	3 (10.0)
Cognitive function (MMSE-KC)
Intact (25-30)	12 (40.0)
Mild impairment (17-24)	16 (53.3)
Severe impairment (≤ 16)	1 (3.3)
Unable to test	1 (3.3)
Depression (SGDS)
Intact (< 5)	14 (46.7)
Mild depression (≥ 5 and < 10)	15 (50.0)
Severe depression (≥ 10)	1 (3.3)
Nutritional status (MNA)
Normal (≥ 24)	4 (13.3)
Risk of malnutrition (≥ 17 and < 24)	23 (76.7)
Malnutrition (< 17)	3 (10.0)
Mobility (TUGT)
Intact	16 (53.3)
Impaired or incapable	14 (46.7)
Geriatric assessment
Abnormal	28 (93.3)
Normal	2 (6.7)

ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale of performance status; MMSE-KC, Mini-Mental Status Examination in the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Packet; MNA, Mini Nutritional Assessment; SGDS, short-form Geriatric Depression Scale; TUGT, timed get-up-and-go test.

Table 3.

Intervention need and adherence

	Intervention need	Intervention compliance – adherence
Polypharmacy	21 (70.0)	21 (100)
Functional status	1 (3.3)	1 (100)
Mobility/Fall risk	6 (20.0)	2 (33.3)
Nutritional status	18 (60.0)	16 (88.9)
Cognitive function	10 (33.3)	6 (60.0)
Emotional well-being	15 (50.0)	7 (46.7)
Insomnia	8 (26.7)	7 (87.5)
Social and family support	3 (10.0)	3 (100)
Medical problem	0	0

Values are presented as number (%).

REFERENCES

1. Kim YJ, Kim JH, Park MS, Lee KW, Kim KI, Bang SM, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in Korean elderly cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011;137:839–47. Article PubMed PDF
2. Dale W, Klepin HD, Williams GR, Alibhai SM, Bergerot C, Brintzenhofeszoc K, et al. Practical assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older patients receiving systemic cancer therapy: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:4293–312. PubMed
3. Extermann M, Hurria A. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1824–31. Article PubMed
4. 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;29:3457–65. Article PubMed PMC
5. Kim JW, Lee YG, Hwang IG, Song HS, Koh SJ, Ko YH, et al. Predicting cumulative incidence of adverse events in older patients with cancer undergoing first-line palliative chemotherapy: Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) multicentre prospective study. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:1169–75. Article PubMed PMC PDF
6. Kalsi T, Babic-Illman G, Ross PJ, Maisey NR, Hughes S, Fields P, et al. The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment interventions on tolerance to chemotherapy in older people. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:1435–44. Article PubMed PMC PDF
7. Nadaraja S, Matzen LE, Jorgensen TL, Dysager L, Knudsen AO, Jeppesen SS, et al. The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment for optimal treatment of older patients with cancer: a randomized parallel-group clinical trial. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11:488–95. PubMed
8. Hamaker ME, Buurman BM, van Munster BC, Kuper IM, Smorenburg CH, de Rooij SE. The value of a comprehensive geriatric assessment for patient care in acutely hospitalized older patients with cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16:1403–12. Article PubMed PMC PDF
9. Jung HW, Kim JW, Han JW, Kim K, Kim JH, Kim KI, et al. Multidimensional geriatric prognostic index, based on a geriatric assessment, for long-term survival in older adults in Korea. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147032Article PubMed PMC
10. Kim JW, Kim YJ, Lee KW, Chang H, Lee JO, Kim KI, et al. The early discontinuation of palliative chemotherapy in older patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:773–81. Article PubMed PDF
11. Extermann M, Aapro M, Bernabei R, Cohen HJ, Droz JP, Lichtman S, et al. Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: recommendations from the task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005;55:241–52. PubMed
12. Kenis C, Decoster L, Flamaing J, Debruyne PR, De Groof I, Focan C, et al. Adherence to geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: a multicenter prospective cohort study in Belgium. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1987–94. Article PubMed
13. Hansen TK, Pedersen LH, Shahla S, Damsgaard EM, Bruun JM, Gregersen M. Effects of a new early municipality-based versus a geriatric team-based transitional care intervention on readmission and mortality among frail older patients: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;97:104511.Article PubMed
14. Chen Z, Ding Z, Chen C, Sun Y, Jiang Y, Liu F, et al. Effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment intervention on quality of life, caregiver burden and length of hospital stay: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:377.Article PubMed PMC PDF
15. Dolin TG, Mikkelsen M, Jakobsen HL, Nordentoft T, Pedersen TS, Vinther A, et al. Geriatric assessment and intervention in older vulnerable patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (GEPOC trial). BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:88.PubMed PMC
16. Orum M, Eriksen SV, Gregersen M, Jensen AR, Jensen K, Meldgaard P, et al. The impact of a tailored follow-up intervention on comprehensive geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer: a randomised controlled trial. J Geriatr Oncol. 2021;12:41–8. Article PubMed
17. Li D, Sun CL, Kim H, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Chung V, Koczywas M, et al. Geriatric Assessment-Driven Intervention (GAIN) on chemotherapy-related toxic effects in older adults with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158Article PubMed PMC
18. Kim JW, Kim SH, Lee YG, Hwang IG, Kim JY, Koh SJ, et al. Prospective validation of the Korean Cancer Study Group Geriatric Score (KG)-7, a novel geriatric screening tool, in older patients with advanced cancer undergoing first-line palliative chemotherapy. Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51:1249–56. Article PubMed PMC PDF
19. Kim JW, Kim SH, Kim YJ, Lee KW, Kim KI, Lee JS, et al. A novel geriatric screening tool in older patients with cancer: the Korean Cancer Study Group Geriatric Score (KG)-7. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138304PubMed PMC
20. Yoo JI, Choi H, Ha YC. Mean hand grip strength and cut-off value for sarcopenia in Korean adults using KNHANES VI. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32:868–72. Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.
22. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–8. Article PubMed
23. Lee DY, Lee JH, Ju YS, Lee KU, Kim KW, Jhoo JH, et al. The prevalence of dementia in older people in an urban population of Korea: the Seoul study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:1233–9. PubMed
24. Bae JN, Cho MJ. Development of the Korean version of the Geriatric Depression Scale and its short form among elderly psychiatric patients. J Psychosom Res. 2004;57:297–305. Article PubMed
25. Vellas B, Guigoz Y, Garry PJ, Nourhashemi F, Bennahum D, Lauque S, et al. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and its use in grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Nutrition. 1999;15:116–22. Article PubMed
26. Lund CM, Vistisen KK, Olsen AP, Bardal P, Schultz M, Dolin TG, et al. The effect of geriatric intervention in frail older patients receiving chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a randomised trial (GERICO). Br J Cancer. 2021;124:1949–58. Article PubMed PMC PDF
27. Boulahssass R, Gonfrier S, Champigny N, Lassalle S, Francois E, Hofman P, et al. The desire to better understand older adults with solid tumors to improve management: assessment and guided interventions-the French PACA EST cohort experience. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11:192.PubMed PMC
28. Baitar A, Kenis C, Moor R, Decoster L, Luce S, Bron D, et al. Implementation of geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: a multicentre prospective study. J Geriatr Oncol. 2015;6:401–10. Article PubMed
29. Wildiers H, Heeren P, Puts M, Topinkova E, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Extermann M, et al. International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2595–603. Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Pilot Study for Feasibility of Onco-Geriatric Intervention Model in Older Patients with Cancer in a Tertiary Academic Hospital

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2025.079

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Pilot Study for Feasibility of Onco-Geriatric Intervention Model in Older Patients with Cancer in a Tertiary Academic Hospital

Fig. 1. The correlation between intervention need and geriatric assessment deficit. ADL, activities of daily living; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; IADL, instrument activities of daily living; MMSE, Mini-Mental Status Examination; MNA, Mini Nutri tional Assessment; TUGT, timed get-up-and-go test.

Fig. 2. KG-7 score change between baseline and the 12-week follow-up (F/U).

Fig. 3. Geriatric assessment deficit change between baseline and the 12-week follow-up (F/U). GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MNA, Mini Nutri tional Assessment; TUGT, timed get-up-and-go test.

Fig. 4. Quality of life (QoL) change between baseline and the 12-week follow-up (F/U).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Pilot Study for Feasibility of Onco-Geriatric Intervention Model in Older Patients with Cancer in a Tertiary Academic Hospital

Domain	Thresholds for interventions	Standardized interventions	Compliance and assessment
Polypharmacy	Inappropriate medication use, identified by Beers criteria or New Beers criteria	Medication adjustment and counseling	Reduction in the number of inappropriate medications
Functional status	Dependent ADL	Telephone follow-up; referral to social work if necessary	Maintenance of functional capacity
Mobility/Fall risk	Dependent IADL	Telephone follow-up; referral to social work if necessary	Maintenance of functional capacity
	Falls during the last 6 months	Referral to physical therapy	Reduction in fall events
	Timed get-up-and-go test > 20 seconds	Referral to physical therapy	Improvement in mobility and fall risk reduction
Nutritional status	MNA ≤ 17	Nutritional counseling and supplementation	Improvement in MNA score
	Weight loss ≥ 5% in the last 3 months	Nutritional counseling and supplementation	Improvement in weight and MNA score
Cognitive function	Cognitive impairment MMSE ≤ 23	Referral to psychiatry	Improvement in MMSE score
Emotional well-being	Depression identified, GDS-15 ≥ 6	Referral to psychiatry	Improvement in GDS-15 score
Insomnia	Subjective discomfort reported	Prescription of sleep aids or referral to psychiatry	Improvement in reported insomnia symptoms
Social and family support	Living alone	Referral to social work; telephone follow-up	Improved rates of hospital visits and treatment adherence
Medical problems	Uncontrolled comorbidities	Adjust medication; referral to specialists	Resolution of uncontrolled specialistsmedical issues

Variable	No. (%)
Age (yr), median (range)	79.5 (71-87)
70-74	4 (13.3)
75-79	11 (36.7)
80-84	10 (33.3)
≥ 85	5 (16.7)
Sex
Female	19 (63.3)
Male	11 (36.7)
ECOG PS
1	21 (70.0)
2	9 (30.0)
Clinical setting
Adjuvant	12 (40.0)
Palliative	18 (60.0)
Cancer type
Colon cancer	13 (43.3)
Pancreatic cancer	7 (23.3)
Gastric cancer	7 (23.3)
Biliary tract cancer	2 (6.7)
Duodenal cancer	1 (3.3)
KG-7
0	1 (3.3)
1	1 (3.3)
2	1 (3.3)
3	1 (3.3)
4	19 (63.3)
5	7 (23.3)
Grip strength, median (range)	17.5 (10.0-22.2) in female, 25.6 (11.7-31.2) in male
Normal	17 (56.7)
Low (< 28.6 kg [male] and < 16.4 kg [female])	13 (43.3)
Activity of daily living
Independent	30 (100)
Dependent	0
Instrumental activity daily of living
Independent	27 (90.0)
Dependent	3 (10.0)
Cognitive function (MMSE-KC)
Intact (25-30)	12 (40.0)
Mild impairment (17-24)	16 (53.3)
Severe impairment (≤ 16)	1 (3.3)
Unable to test	1 (3.3)
Depression (SGDS)
Intact (< 5)	14 (46.7)
Mild depression (≥ 5 and < 10)	15 (50.0)
Severe depression (≥ 10)	1 (3.3)
Nutritional status (MNA)
Normal (≥ 24)	4 (13.3)
Risk of malnutrition (≥ 17 and < 24)	23 (76.7)
Malnutrition (< 17)	3 (10.0)
Mobility (TUGT)
Intact	16 (53.3)
Impaired or incapable	14 (46.7)
Geriatric assessment
Abnormal	28 (93.3)
Normal	2 (6.7)

	Intervention need	Intervention compliance – adherence
Polypharmacy	21 (70.0)	21 (100)
Functional status	1 (3.3)	1 (100)
Mobility/Fall risk	6 (20.0)	2 (33.3)
Nutritional status	18 (60.0)	16 (88.9)
Cognitive function	10 (33.3)	6 (60.0)
Emotional well-being	15 (50.0)	7 (46.7)
Insomnia	8 (26.7)	7 (87.5)
Social and family support	3 (10.0)	3 (100)
Medical problem	0	0

Table 1. Geriatric intervention checklist

ADL, activities of daily living; GDS-15, Geriatric Depression Scale; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; MNA, mini nutritional assessment; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination.

Table 2. Baseline characteristics and geriatric assessment

Table 3. Intervention need and adherence

Values are presented as number (%).