The effect of comprehensive geriatric assessment on treatment decisions, supportive care received, and postoperative outcomes in older adults with cancer undergoing surgery: A systematic review

Introduction: Surgery is an essential part of cancer treatment, particularly for localised solid tumours. Geriatric assessments (GA) with tailored interventions or comprehensive GA (CGA) can identify frailty factors and needs of older adults with cancer, assisting treatment decisions and care strategies to reduce postoperative complications. This systematic review summarises the effects of GA/CGA compared to usual care for older adults with cancer intended for surgery: their impact on treatment decisions, supportive care interventions, postoperative complications, survival, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed (January 2000-October 2022) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies with a comparison group on the effects of GA/CGA in older adults with cancer (>= 65 years) intended for surgery. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and reporting, a meta-analysis was not possible; results are narratively described. Results: From 12,440 citations, 312 were selected for full-text review. Thirteen studies reporting on 12 trials were included for analysis: four RCTs and eight cohort studies with comparison groups (three prospective, five retrospective). RCTs ranged in sample size (122-475; mean 249), with variability in who performed GA/CGA, disciplines involved, and team integration. Primary outcomes included impact of GA/CGA on postoperative delirium (two studies), Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade II-V postoperative complications (one study), hospital length of stay (one study), and a composite criterion including mortality, functional impairment, and weight loss (one study). All RCTs scored high for risk of bias due to underpowering for their primary outcome; none met their primary endpoint. After adjustment for prespecified factors in secondary analyses, one RCT found GA/CGA significantly reduced the odds of postoperative complications (CD grade I-V) (adjusted-OR: 0.33, 95 %CI: 0.11-0.95; p = 0.05) due to fewer grade I-II complications. One RCT reported no significant difference between groups in HRQOL: intervention patients reported less pain at discharge, but this difference disappeared at threemonth follow-up. Discussion: Well-powered, high-quality trials are needed to determine the impact of GA/CGA on optimising surgical treatment decisions, supportive care and postoperative outcomes for older adults with cancer.