• Users Online: 304
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 660-661

Author's reply to Kanesvaran et al. and Vora


Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission06-Aug-2020
Date of Decision06-Aug-2020
Date of Acceptance07-Aug-2020
Date of Web Publication19-Sep-2020

Correspondence Address:
Kumar Prabhash
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Mumbai, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/CRST.CRST_268_20

Get Permissions


How to cite this article:
Noronha V, Ramaswamy A, Prabhash K. Author's reply to Kanesvaran et al. and Vora. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:660-1

How to cite this URL:
Noronha V, Ramaswamy A, Prabhash K. Author's reply to Kanesvaran et al. and Vora. Cancer Res Stat Treat [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 21];3:660-1. Available from: https://www.crstonline.com/text.asp?2020/3/3/660/295512



We thank Kanesvaran and Chowdhury[1] and Vora[2] for their insightful comments regarding our initial experience of establishing a geriatric oncology clinic at the Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India,[3] and the accompanying editorial.[4]

We agree with Kanesvaran and Chowdhury[1] that we need to establish new culturally appropriate tools for the geriatric assessment, as it would be a valuable addition in the evaluation of older adults with cancer in other developing countries as well. We are working toward this.

The geriatric assessment takes time, and this limits its universal applicability.[5] The burning need is to make the geriatric assessment quicker, so that it can be done rapidly and relatively easily in a busy clinic, which might help improve the uptake of geriatric assessment by the oncology community. The suggestion by Kanesvaran and Chowdhury[1] of sending some of the geriatric assessment questions to the patients by E-mail is a good one. Another method that we are exploring is to give a printout of the geriatric tools, such as the Geriatric Depression Scale, to the patients while they are waiting for their appointment. We have observed that although a significant proportion of the patients are illiterate, they are often accompanied by younger, literate relatives who are willing and able to help them fill out these forms.

We agree to some extent with Dr. Vora[2] regarding the need for taking a collateral history. We have incorporated the history of various geriatric syndromes such as insomnia and constipation in the geriatric assessment. We also inquired of the patients and their relatives regarding a history of neuropsychological problems, as this is one of the points from the G8 screening questionnaire. Regardless of whether the history indicated a memory problem, we administered the mini-mental status examination to all our older patients, as it is a good objective evaluation of cognition.

We agree with Dr. Vora[2] that merely diagnosing the presence of non-oncologic vulnerabilities is not sufficient. Following the geriatric assessment, interventions must be carried out in the identified vulnerable domains. Our geriatric oncology patients are routinely referred to various specialists including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dietitians, nutritionists, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, and general physicians. We are hoping to one day establish a multidisciplinary geriatric oncology clinic incorporating all these specialists, so that it becomes a one-stop shop for our older patients with cancer. Currently, the clinic comprises clinical pharmacologists, physiotherapists and social workers, but we are gradually attempting to expand this to be able to provide integrated oncogeriatric care.

Dr. Vora's[2] suggestion to incorporate the Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) risk assessment-tool-based chemotherapy dose reduction strategy is an excellent one, but we would like to point out an important caveat. The CARG chemotoxicity calculator has been developed in a cohort of American patients and needs to be validated in our Indian population.[6] In 2019, Dr. Erin Moth reported that the CARG chemotoxicity risk calculator could not reliably predict severe toxicity from chemotherapy in Australian older patients with cancer (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.92–1.18; P = 0.54, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.52).[7] An ongoing study at the Tata Memorial Center (Mumbai, India) to evaluate the ability of the CARG chemotoxicity risk calculator to reliably predict the toxicity from chemotherapy in older Indian patients with cancer has just completed patient recruitment, and the results are awaited. Until we ascertain that it is reliable in the Indian setting, it may be premature to reduce the dose of chemotherapy based on this tool. For now, we calculate the expected chemotherapy toxicity for full-dose combination chemotherapy, reduced-dose combination chemotherapy, full-dose monotherapy, and reduced-dose monotherapy and provide these figures to the treating clinician who then makes the final decision regarding the dose of systemic therapy to be administered.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Kanesvaran R, Chowdhury AR. Paving the way for a bright future for geriatric oncology in India. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:658-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Vora AD. Next steps for geriatric oncology in India. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;2020;3:662.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Noronha V, Ramaswamy A, Dhekle R, Talreja V, Gota V, Gawit K, et al. Initial experience of a geriatric oncology clinic in a tertiary cancer center in India. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:208-17.  Back to cited text no. 3
  [Full text]  
4.
Parikh PM, Chaitanya K, Boppana M, Kumar MS, Shankar K. Geriatric oncology landscape in India – Current scenario and future projections. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2020;3:296-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
  [Full text]  
5.
Noronha V, Talreja V, Joshi A, Patil V, Prabhash K. Survey for geriatric assessment in practicing oncologists in India. Cancer Res Stat Treat 2019;2:232-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
  [Full text]  
6.
Hurria A, Mohile S, Gajra A, Klepin H, Muss H, Chapman A, et al. Validation of a prediction tool for chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2366-71.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Moth EB, Kiely BE, Stefanic N, Naganathan V, Martin A, Grimison P, et al. Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults: Comparing the predictive value of the CARG toxicity Score with oncologists' estimates of toxicity based on clinical judgement. J Geriatr Oncol 2019;10:202-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed32    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded5    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal