Exploring the Language Used to Describe Older Patients at Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences

Simple Summary Older adults with cancer are often the subject of much discussion at multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs), yet little is known about the language used to describe frailty and other geriatric considerations at these meetings. Our objective was to explore how MCC presentations depict older patients. We found that MCCs frequently referred to comorbidity burden and projected treatment tolerance on the basis of subjective evaluations, rather than comprehensive geriatric assessments. We also noted that mentions of surrogate measures for frailty, such as chronological age and performance status, varied between tumour sites, presenter specialties, and presenter training levels. Overall, our results suggest that MCCs predominantly rely on age-based descriptions and, thus, engender risk of age-biased decision making. This work may guide future efforts aimed at standardizing the language at MCCs to include more objective terms and validated tools for considering different geriatric domains when discussing older adults with cancer.Abstract Older adults with cancer often present with distinct complexities that complicate their care, yet the language used to discuss their management at multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) remains poorly understood. A mixed methods study was conducted at a tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada, where MCCs spanning five tumour sites were attended over six months. For presentations pertaining to a patient aged 75 or older, a standardized data collection form was used to record their demographic, cancer-related, and non-cancer-related information, as well as the presenter's specialty and training level. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were employed to explore MCC depictions of older patients (n = 75). Frailty status was explicitly mentioned in 20.0% of presentations, but discussions more frequently referenced comorbidity burden (50.7%), age (33.3%), and projected treatment tolerance (30.7%) as surrogate measures. None of the presentations included mentions of formal geriatric assessment (GA) or validated frailty tools; instead, presenters tended to feature select GA domains and subjective descriptions of appearance ("looks to be fit") or overall health ("relatively healthy"). In general, MCCs appeared to rely on age-focused language that may perpetuate ageism. Further work is needed to investigate how frailty and geriatric considerations can be objectively incorporated into discussions in geriatric oncology.