Geriatrisches Ko-Management in der Hämatologie: Bloß nicht entmutigen lassen!

N. Neuendorff
{"title":"Geriatrisches Ko-Management in der Hämatologie: Bloß nicht entmutigen lassen!","authors":"N. Neuendorff","doi":"10.1159/000526395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We conducted a randomized controlled trial in older adults with hematologic malignancies to determine the impact of geriatrician consultation embedded in our oncology clinic alongside standard care. From February 2015 to May 2018, transplant-ineligible patients aged ≥75 years who presented for initial consultation for lymphoma, leukemia, or multiple myeloma at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA, USA) were eligible. Pre-frail and frail patients, classified based on phenotypic and deficit-accumulation approaches, were randomized to receive either standard oncologic care with or without consultation with a geriatrician. The primary outcome was 1-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included unplanned care utilization within 6 months of follow-up and documented end-of-life (EOL) goals-of-care discussions. Clinicians were surveyed as to their impressions of geriatric consultation. One hundred sixty patients were randomized to either geriatric consultation plus standard care (n = 60) or standard care alone (n = 100). The median age of the patients was 80.4 years (standard deviation = 4.2). Of those randomized to geriatric consultation, 48 (80%) completed at least one visit with a geriatrician. Consultation did not improve survival at 1 year compared to standard care (difference: 2.9%, 95% confidence interval: –9.5% to 15.2%, P = 0.65), and did not significantly reduce the incidence of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, or days in hospital. Consultation did improve the odds of having EOL goals-of-care discussions (odds ratio = 3.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 9.41) and was valued by surveyed hematologic-oncology clinicians, with 62.9%–88.2% of them rating consultation as useful in the management of several geriatric domains.","PeriodicalId":413988,"journal":{"name":"Kompass Onkologie","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kompass Onkologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000526395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in older adults with hematologic malignancies to determine the impact of geriatrician consultation embedded in our oncology clinic alongside standard care. From February 2015 to May 2018, transplant-ineligible patients aged ≥75 years who presented for initial consultation for lymphoma, leukemia, or multiple myeloma at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA, USA) were eligible. Pre-frail and frail patients, classified based on phenotypic and deficit-accumulation approaches, were randomized to receive either standard oncologic care with or without consultation with a geriatrician. The primary outcome was 1-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included unplanned care utilization within 6 months of follow-up and documented end-of-life (EOL) goals-of-care discussions. Clinicians were surveyed as to their impressions of geriatric consultation. One hundred sixty patients were randomized to either geriatric consultation plus standard care (n = 60) or standard care alone (n = 100). The median age of the patients was 80.4 years (standard deviation = 4.2). Of those randomized to geriatric consultation, 48 (80%) completed at least one visit with a geriatrician. Consultation did not improve survival at 1 year compared to standard care (difference: 2.9%, 95% confidence interval: –9.5% to 15.2%, P = 0.65), and did not significantly reduce the incidence of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, or days in hospital. Consultation did improve the odds of having EOL goals-of-care discussions (odds ratio = 3.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 9.41) and was valued by surveyed hematologic-oncology clinicians, with 62.9%–88.2% of them rating consultation as useful in the management of several geriatric domains.
不要灰心丧气!
我们在患有血液恶性肿瘤的老年人中进行了一项随机对照试验,以确定在我们的肿瘤诊所中嵌入的老年专家咨询和标准治疗的影响。从2015年2月到2018年5月,在丹娜-法伯癌症研究所(Boston, MA, USA)首次咨询淋巴瘤、白血病或多发性骨髓瘤的年龄≥75岁的不适合移植的患者符合条件。根据表型和缺陷积累方法对体弱和体弱患者进行分类,随机接受标准肿瘤治疗,有或没有咨询老年医学专家。主要终点为1年总生存期。次要结果包括随访6个月内的计划外护理利用和记录的生命末期(EOL)护理目标讨论。对临床医生进行了调查,了解他们对老年会诊的印象。160例患者随机分为老年会诊加标准治疗组(n = 60)和单独标准治疗组(n = 100)。患者的中位年龄为80.4岁(标准差= 4.2)。在那些随机分配到老年咨询的人中,48人(80%)完成了至少一次与老年专家的访问。与标准治疗相比,会诊并没有提高1年生存率(差异:2.9%,95%可信区间:-9.5%至15.2%,P = 0.65),也没有显著降低急诊科就诊、住院或住院天数的发生率。咨询确实提高了EOL护理目标讨论的几率(优势比= 3.12,95%可信区间:1.03至9.41),并且被调查的血液肿瘤学临床医生所重视,其中62.9%-88.2%的人认为咨询在几个老年领域的管理中是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信