pISSN: 1229-6538
eISSN: 2383-5699
search for




 

Navigating the Gray Zone: Physicians’ Perspectives on Treatment Decision-Making in Elderly Cancer Patients in Korea
Korean J Geriatr Gerontol 2024 Aug;25(2):87-98
Published online August 30, 2024;  https://doi.org/10.15656/kjgg.2024.25.2.87
Copyright © 2024 The Korean Academy of Geriatrics & Gerontology.

Dong Ah Park1 , Seung Eun Ryoo1 , Jung Eun Park1 , Jeong Ju Yoo2 , Gi Hong Choi3 , Min Woo Lee4

1Division of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul; 2Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Bucheon; 3Department of General Surgery, Yonsei University School of Medicine, Seoul; 4Department of Radiology, Samgsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to: Dong Ah Park, Division of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), 400 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 04933, Korea. E-mail: pda124@neca.re.kr
Received March 16, 2024; Revised May 30, 2024; Accepted June 1, 2024.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://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.
 Abstract
Background: To investigate awareness and perceptions related to treatment decision-making in elderly cancer patients among Korean cancer physicians.
Methods: Online survey was conducted from July to August 2022 among medical doctors working at general or tertiary general hospitals in Korea involved in treatment decision-making for elderly cancer patients. The questionnaire comprised single or multiple choice questions in four parts.
Results: 382 Cancer physicians participated in this survey, 82.2% agreed that they would be less inclined to treat the patients if they were older, and among these participants, 91.8% reported the age threshold for less intensive treatment to be over 75 years. The top choice for the most important factor was “patient’s decision” (24.9%). “Functional status” (94.8%) ranked highest in importance agreement for the factors, followed by “patient decision”, “patient frailty”, and “cancer stage”. “I modify treatment plans for older cancer patients to take into account their level of frailty and overall functional status” had the highest agreement rate as a clinical practice in the treatment of elderly cancer patients (91.6%). Among the respondents, 85.1% agreed that it is necessary to develop clinical practice guidelines related to cancer treatment for the elderly, and also ‘development of clinical guidelines’ was the highest item as an area in need of improvement in treatment decision-making (38.7%).
Conclusion: In our study, we found that patient decision-making and functional status were important considerations in treatment decisions for older cancer patients. The development and dissemination of relevant clinical guidelines are needed to improve treatment decision-making for older cancer patients.
Keywords : Elderly, Neoplasms, Physician, Survey, Treatment decision-making
INTRODUCTION

Globally, the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer over the age of 65 is expected to increase due to population aging and advances in medical technology, and Korea is expected to enter the ultra-elderly society by 2025 [1]. According to the 2021 cancer registration statistics [2,3], the number of newly diagnosed cancer patients was more than 277,000, an increase of 10.8% (270,002) compared to last year, and as of January 2022, the number of cancer patients in Korea was 2.43 million, accounting for 4.7% of the total population, of which 1.19 million were aged 65 and above, making 1 in 7 people aged 65 and above a cancer patient. According to the statistics on causes of death [4], 22.4% of all deaths are due to cancer, which continues to be the leading cause of death every year, with people aged 80 and over accounting for 53.8% of all deaths, an increase of 17.0% from 10 years ago.

Although the disease burden of older cancer patients is increasing, their treatment decisions must take into account a complex set of diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic uncertainties that can lead to considerable disagreement about the best course of action. In particular, older patients may want limited involvement in treatment decisions, preferring to leave treatment decisions to their physicians [5-9]. Several studies report that most cancer specialists are reluctant to treat patients based on their advanced age alone and often choose less intensive treatments that are not optimal options [7,9]. In addition, most countries still do not have standardized approaches or guidelines in the decision-making process of treating elderly cancer patients, or are not well prepared to treat for elderly cancer patients with varying degrees of severity [10,11]. Korea is not much different, and there is a lack of research investigating patients’ understanding of treatment decision making in elderly cancer patients, or even basic research on the extent of professionals’ awareness.

Understanding the attitudes of cancer specialists toward the treatment of elderly patients is key to developing strategies to improve cancer treatment for elderly patients. To investigate and evaluate this, surveys have been conducted in other countries with different samples of elderly cancer patients and response rates [12-15], but none have been conducted in Korea. Therefore, we aimed to provide objective evidence that would be helpful in making treatment decisions for elderly cancer patients by investigating the perceptions related to treatment decision-making among Korean oncologists. This study was conducted to determine the level of awareness and the main factors influencing the decision-making process of specialists treating elderly cancer patients in Korea, and to investigate what needs to be improved to improve decision-making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Study population

We surveyed physicians working in general hospitals or tertiary general hospitals in Korea regarding treatment decision- making for elderly cancer patients from July 8 to August 26, 2022. We sent the URL of the online survey to medical societies through a survey cooperation letter, and 19 out of 28 medical societies cooperated with the survey. The survey was conducted with subjects who understood the purpose and content of the study and voluntarily agreed to participate. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (IRB number: NECA-IRB21-016, Date of registration: 17-June-2021).

2. Questionnaire and measurement

The survey questionnaire consisted of a 57-item single- or multiple-choice questionnaire in four parts as follows: (1) basic characteristics of respondents; (2) factors influencing geriatric cancer treatment decisions; (3) perceptions of geriatric cancer treatment-related items; (4) perceptions of improvements to enhance geriatric cancer treatment decisions.

Basic characteristics included baseline characteristics, clinical characteristics, institutional characteristics, satisfaction with institutional support systems, intention to use a geriatrician, presence of clinical practice guidelines, and need for clinical practice guideline development. Among the factors that influence geriatric cancer treatment decisions, ‘functional status’ refers to an individual’s ability to perform activities of daily living. The online survey took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. This survey was conducted by Global Research Institute using their proprietary platform.

3. Statistical analysis

The sample size was estimated based on previous studies and calculated using a survey sample size calculator. The survey had a response rate of 23.0% (382/1,661). 382 cases were required to detect a margin of error of 5% at the 95% confidence level. Survey items with refusals or missing responses were excluded from analysis. The collected data were coded using Microsoft Excel and analyzed using SPSS ver. 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents were analyzed using descriptive analysis to obtain proportions and means for each question.

RESULTS

1. Characteristics of the respondents

A total of 382 respondents were surveyed, and the results were detailed in Table 1. Their basic characteristics included age: 42.4% in their 40s, 32.5% in their 50s, and 19.4% in their 30s; 73.8% were male; 74.1% had a PhD. In terms of clinical characteristics, the most common specialty was surgical medicine at 50.8%, followed by internal medicine at 27.0%, hematologic oncology at 12.6%. 73.3% worked in private organizations; 82.2% of respondents worked in tertiary general hospital. More than 10 years of clinical experience was most common (67.0%), followed by 5-10 years (17.3%), and less than 5 years (15.7%). The average number of patients seen per week was 36.4% for 50-99, followed by 22.0% for less than 50, 18.3% for 100-149, 13.4% for 200+, and 9.9% for 150-199. The percentage of cancer patients aged 65 and older seen per week was highest in the 15-30% group at 35.3%, followed by 31.9% in the 31-60% group, 24.1% in the 61-70% group, and 8.6% in the 71-100% group. 82.2% of respondents reported that their organization did not have a geriatrician; 81.4% of respondents reported that their organization had a multidisciplinary consulting system.

Table 1 . Baseline characteristics of the respondents (n=382).

CharacteristicNo. of respondents (%)
Age (year)≤291 (0.3)
30-3974 (19.4)
40-49 162 (42.4)
50-59124 (32.5)
≥6021 (5.5)
SexMale282 (73.8)
Female100 (26.2)
Marital statusUnmarried42 (11.0)
Married336 (88.0)
Other4 (1.0)
EducationBachelor21 (5.5)
Master77 (20.2)
Doctorate283 (74.1)
Other1 (0.3)
SpecialtiesHematologic oncology48 (12.6)
Internal medicine103 (27.0)
Surgical medicine194 (50.8)
Diagnostic radiology6 (1.6)
Other31 (8.1)
OrganizationPublic102 (26.7)
Private280 (73.3)
Type of hospitalGeneral hospital68 (17.8)
Tertiary general hospital314 (82.2)
Board certification (year)<560 (15.7)
5-966 (17.3)
≥10256 (67.0)
Average number of patients seen per week (No)<5084 (22.0)
50-99139 (36.4)
100-14970 (18.3)
150-19938 (9.9)
≥20051 (13.4)
Percentage of cancer patients aged ≥65 seen per week (%)15-30135 (35.3)
31-60122 (31.9)
61-7092 (24.1)
71-10033 (8.6)
Does your organization have a geriatrician?Yes68 (17.8)
No314 (82.2)
Do you have a multi-disciplinary consulting system?Yes311 (81.4)
No71 (18.6)
Are you satisfied with the support system at your organization?Satisfied72 (18.8)
Neutral198 (51.8)
Unsatisfied112 (29.3)
Are you willing to use a geriatrician if one is available?Yes282 (73.8)
Neutral73 (19.1)
No27 (7.1)
Do you believe there are available clinical guidelines for geriatric cancer patients?Yes49 (12.8)
Neutral141 (36.9)
No192 (50.3)
Do we need clinical guidelines for geriatric cancer patients?Yes325 (85.1)
Neutral49 (12.8)
No8 (2.1)


The percentage of respondents who were satisfied with their organization’s support system (18.8%) was lower than the percentage who were dissatisfied (29.3%). When asked if they would use a geriatrician if one were available, 73.8% of respondents said yes. When asked, “Do you believe there are clinical guidelines available for geriatric cancer patients?”, 12.8% answered yes and 50.3% answered no. When asked about the need for the development of clinical guidelines for geriatric cancer patients, 85.1% of respondents answered “yes”.

The majority (82.2%) of participants agreed that they would be less inclined to treat the patients if they were older. Among those who answered “yes” to the question, the age threshold for treatment was “85-89 years” (40.4%), followed by “75-84 years” (32.2%), “90 years or older” (19.1%), “65-74 years”, and “other” (4.1% each).

2. Factors influencing geriatric cancer treatment decision-making

Elderly cancer patients were asked to prioritize 1-3 out of 8 factors that were important in their treatment decisions; the first priority factor was “patient decision” (24.9%), followed by “cancer type” (22.0%) and “functional status” (17.0%). The second priority factor was “cancer stage” (26.4%), followed by “functional status” (19.4%), “cancer type”, and “patient frailty” (12.8% each). The third most important factor was “functional status” (21.2%), followed by “patient frailty” (16.2%) and “patient age” (15.4%). Prioritized responses to 8 factors related to cancer treatment decision-making in the elderly are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Ranking of important factors in treatment decision making for older cancer patients

Of the eight considerations, 94.8% of respondents considered “functional status” to be the most important, followed by “patient decision” (90.8%), “patient frailty” (89.3%), and “cancer stage” (88.5%). The importance responses for 8 factors regarding cancer treatment decision making in older adults are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 . Level of importance agreement for factors influencing geriatric cancer treatment decision-making (n=382).

Agree*DisagreeNeutral
Functional status94.8%0.3%5.0%
Co-morbidity77.7%1.3%20.9%
Cancer type75.9%3.1%20.9%
Cancer stage88.5%0.8%10.7%
Patient decision90.8%0.5%8.6%
Patient age69.4%6.0%24.6%
Patient family intention58.6%6.0%35.3%
Patient frailty89.3%1.6%9.2%

Based on a Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=neutral, 4=somewhat agree, and 5=strongly agree..

Some percentages may not total 100% due to rounding..

*Percent “agree” was calculated using the sum of physicians who chose a 4 or 5 on the Likert scale. Percent “disagree” was calculated using the sum of physicians who chose a 1 or 2 on the Likert scale. Percent “neutral” was calculated using physicians who chose a 3 on the Likert scale..



For the overall importance of 26 items (cancer/patient/ practice/organization related domain) considered in cancer treatment decision making for the elderly, the highest number of respondents (99.5%) considered “patient’s quality of life”, followed by “cancer stage” (99.2%), “patient’s functional age”, “nutritional status”, and “ability to live independently” (98.4% each). Table 3 summarizes the results of the top 10 rankings.

Table 3 . Top 10 rankings regarding geriatrics cancer treatment decision-making in 4 domains (n=382).

Not very important (①)Somewhat important (②)Very important (③)Important
(②+③)
%%%%
Patient’s quality of life0.533.066.599.5
Cancer stage0.842.956.399.2
Patient’s functional age1.630.168.398.4
Nutritional status1.647.451.098.4
Ability to live independently1.650.547.998.4
Severity of cancer symptoms1.841.157.198.2
Co-morbidity/medication overdose2.471.226.497.6
Patient understanding2.455.242.497.6
Side effects of cancer3.159.936.996.9
Type of primary cancer3.450.346.396.6
Difficulty in applying treatment3.454.242.496.6


Among the four cancer-related items, “cancer stage” was the most important (99.2%), followed by “severity of cancer symptoms” (98.2%), “type of primary cancer” and “difficulty in applying treatment” (96.6% each). The importance of the fifteen patient-related items was highest for “patient’s quality of life” at 99.5%, followed by “patient’s functional age”, “nutritional status” (98.4% each), and “ability to live independently” (97.9%), while “patient’s visible age” was lowest at 77.5%. For the three practice-related items, “use of best practice guidelines” was most important (95.0%), followed by “access to additional consultation with specialists” (92.9%) and “access to palliative treatment” (91.1%). For the four organization-related items, the highest importance was for “collaboration with other stakeholders in the health care organization” (94.7%), followed by “distance between home and hospital” (87.1%), “access to local healthcare network” (83.3%), and “delays before treatment” (82.0%). The response results of 26 items in four domains are summarized in Supplementary Table 1.

3. Perceptions of geriatric cancer and treatment related clinical actions

For ten clinical actions related to geriatric cancer treatment, 91.6% of respondents agreed that “I modify treatment plans for older cancer patients to take into account their level of frailty and overall functional status,” followed by “I believe that the medical treatment of older adults with cancer needs to be improved” (89.0%) and “I would appreciate additional education on topics related to the treatment of older adults with cancer” (87.4%). Supplementary Table 2 summarizes the results of respondents’ perceptions of geriatric cancer treatment related clinical actions.

4. Perceptions of improvements to enhance geriatric cancer treatment decision making

We explored perceptions of what needs to be done to improve decision-making for older cancer patients at the organizational, national, or public level. When it comes to support needs at the organizational level, 79.3% of the respondents thought that “a support system for multidisciplinary discussions” was the most important, followed by “educational programs on caring and treatment for elderly cancer patients” (77.5%) and “standardized geriatric assessment tools” (75.1%). When it comes to agreeing on support needs at the national or public level, 78.5% of respondents said that “providing regular education and training programs on caring and treatment for elderly cancer patients” and “providing support to train geriatric specialists” are the most needed, followed by “developing a nationally standardized geriatric assessment tool” (77.5%) and “providing the up-to-date information to support decision making in caring for elderly cancer patients” (76.2%) (Table 4).

Table 4 . Awareness of areas for improvement in geriatric cancer treatment decision making (n=382).

SectionItemsAgree*DisagreeNeutral
Organizational levelA support system for multidisciplinary discussions79.3%3.4%17.3%
Educational programs on caring and treatment for elderly cancer patients77.5%3.1%19.4%
Standardized geriatric assessment tools75.1%2.9%22.0%
Support staff trained to specialize in geriatrics70.9%5.2%23.8%
Awareness activities to improve treatment for elderly cancer patients65.7%5.2%29.1%
Support clinical research involving elderly cancer patients53.9%9.7%36.4%
National or public levelProviding regular education and training programs on caring and treatment for elderly cancer patients78.5%2.9%18.6%
Providing support to train geriatric specialists78.5%2.9%18.6%
Developing a nationally standardized geriatric assessment tool77.5%2.4%20.2%
Providing the up-to-date information to support decision-making in caring for elderly cancer patients76.2%3.7%20.2%
Encouraging multidisciplinary decision-making support activities68.3%3.7%28.0%
Supporting clinical research involving elderly cancer patients62.6%9.4%28.0%

Based on a Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=neutral, 4=somewhat agree, and 5=strongly agree..

Some percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. *Percent “agree” was calculated using the sum of physicians who chose a 4 or 5 on the Likert scale. Percent “disagree” was calculated using the sum of physicians who chose a 1 or 2 on the Likert scale. Percent “neutral” was calculated using physicians who chose a 3 on the Likert scale..



The most common area of improvement to improve decision making for elderly cancer patients was “development of clinical guidelines for the treatment of elderly cancer patients” (38.7%), followed by “provision or dissemination of accurate information about the treatment of elderly cancer patients” (25.4%), and “involvement of geriatric specialists in multidisciplinary consultations” (14.9%). The results for areas to improve treatment decision making for older cancer patients are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Area to improve treatment decision making for older cancer patients
DISCUSSION

Treatment of older patients (65 years and older) with cancer can be challenging due to a number of medical, physiological, social, and economic factors, and there are many different stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. In this study, we investigated the attitudes and perceptions of physicians treating elderly cancer patients regarding treatment decision-making. Korean physicians treating elderly cancer patients were most likely to agree that “functional status” is the most important factor influencing treatment decisions for cancer patients, and ranked “patient decision” as the highest. However, the patient’s decision was the factor that was most often agreed to be very important on a 5-point scale, so this is likely a result of methodological differences in the analysis of importance agreement levels. Overall, functional status, patient decision, patient frailty, and cancer stage were considered important factors by Korean physicians, with more than 80% agreement. This is similar to the findings of Pang et al. [11], who reported that the most important factors influencing treatment decisions in elderly cancer patients were patient health status, comorbidities, patient decision, cancer type and stage, and Mohile et al. [16], who reported that patient age, functional impairment, and cognitive impairment were important considerations.

In this study, the majority of physicians (82.2%) agreed that they would be less inclined to treat the patients if they were older, and those who agreed were most likely to practice for less intensive treatment for cancer patients aged 85-89 years. In contrast to Pang’s study [11], where 80% of the responding physicians admitted that they were less inclined to treat patients over 75 years of age, our study found a higher level of agreement for less intensive treatment, with 91.8% agreeing for patients over 75 years of age. These findings are consistent with the fact that most physicians are still reluctant to provide standard treatment to elderly patients simply because of their advanced age. Due to the multifactorial nature of geriatric cancer, older cancer patients tend to be diagnosed later, have less complete evaluations, receive less advice from oncologists, and have unequal access to treatment decisions, resulting in suboptimal treatment [17].

Regarding the level of systems in place for the treatment of elderly cancer patients in Korea, the percentage of geriatricians was low (17.8%), but the level of multidisciplinary collaboration was higher than 80%. Satisfaction with institutional support systems was low, with more than 70% of respondents agreeing with the demand to utilize geriatricians and more than 85% agreeing with the need to develop clinical guidelines for geriatric cancer patients. A study by Pang et al. [11] also reported that although geriatrics has been a specialty in Singapore for 25 years, there is still no formal geriatric oncology service in Singapore and no standardized approach or guidelines in the decision-making process of treating elderly cancer patients.

In elderly cancer patients, anticancer treatments must be tailored to the life expectancy and functional status of each patient to ensure that the patient lives long enough to tolerate the side effects of the prescribed treatment and to achieve real benefit. The importance on decision making items of each decision dimensions for older cancer patients in this study was ranked in the following order “patient’s quality of life,” “cancer stage,” “patient’s functional age,” “nutritional status,” “patient’s ability to live independently,” “severity of cancer symptoms,” “comorbidities/medications,” “side effects of cancer,” “type of primary cancer,” and “difficulty using treatment,” which is similar to recent perceptions of importance for older cancer patients [17,18]. Therefore, a more structured approach is needed to optimize treatment options for older cancer patients. To standardize and facilitate the decision-making process in a multidisciplinary team, geriatric assessment scales have been developed [19,20], and several studies have been conducted to evaluate their validity and practical applicability in healthcare settings [21-23]. However, optimized healthcare services for geriatric cancer patients such as a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment have not yet been activated in Korea, so more policy support and clinical efforts are needed.

This lack of geriatric specialists and high need for standardized GA tools for older cancer patients is consistent with the findings of previous studies. Mohile et al. [16]. found that only 23% of community oncologists use a standardized GA tool in their clinical practice, highlighting that GA helps to identify age-related factors (e.g., cognitive impairment and functional status) that are known to influence morbidity and mortality in older cancer patients but are often unrecognized in clinical practice. Several guidelines, including NCCN, recommend the use of GA to identify patients at risk for adverse events in older cancer patients [24]. Although GA has been validated in clinical oncology settings [25,26], oncologists are limited in its adoption due to lack of knowledge, training, and institutional barriers. However, the clinical practice item with the highest level of agreement in this study, “I modify treatment plans for older cancer patients to take into account their level of frailty and overall functional status” is a clinically meaningful and acceptable outcome given the proven ability of GA information to influence treatment decisions [23,27,28].

The need for support at both the hospital and national level to provide educational programs related to the caring and treatment of older cancer patients to improve treatment decision-making was also identified as a need in our study. This is consistent with previous studies that have shown that geriatric education is essential and that there is a high need for education or a lack of formal education for geriatric oncology patients [16,29]. Mohile et al. [16]. emphasized the need for further research to evaluate and improve geriatric education for oncologists. The study also examined the level of agreement on areas for improvement to improve decision-making in the treatment of older cancer patients, and the development of clinical guidelines for the treatment of older cancer patients was cited. This reflects the growing importance for oncologists to recognize geriatric issues as the population ages to ensure that appropriate, evidence-based healthcare is provided that helps and does not harm patients.

Despite these findings, there are several limitations to this study. First, there may have been selection bias due to the voluntary nature of the study and limited access to participants, which may have resulted in a lack of representativeness. Second, response bias may have been greater in an online environment due to the nature of the survey, and the anonymity of an environment free of social norms, unlike interviews or paper surveys, may have led to more candid responses. Third, while we did our best to keep the survey neutral and organized, the order of the questionnaire may have introduced a question order bias that could have affected responses. Fourth, although the number of physicians who participated in the survey cannot be said to be fully representative of the target population, a strength of the study is that many of the participants were physicians with more than 10 years of clinical experience and sufficient exposure to older cancer patients. Finally, the target population of cancer specialists included both diagnostic and nondiagnostic specialists, which may have resulted in incomplete responses due to different perspectives on relevant items such as clinical behaviors. Despite these limitations, the inclusion of physicians with relatively extensive clinical experience from a variety of specialties, which increases the generalizability of the findings, is a major strength of the study.

In this online web survey, physicians involved in the treatment of elderly cancer patients in Korea showed a high level of agreement for less intensive treatment in elderly cancer patients, most commonly seen in elderly cancer patients aged 75 years and older. While they valued the patient’s decision in treatment decisions, they also considered functional status, patient frailty, and cancer staging as important factors. To improve treatment decisions for older cancer patients, the first essential strategy may be to provide support systems for multidisciplinary discussion, geriatric cancer patient-related education and training programs, and support for the development of geriatric experts. In addition, support from professional societies and national body should be strengthened to facilitate the development and dissemination of clinical guidelines for the management of older cancer patients and the provision of objective information.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA; project number NA22-006).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors have no conflict of interest relevant to this study.

References
  1. Statistics Korea. 2023 Seniors statistics [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea; 2023 [cited 2024 Feb 21].
  2. National Cancer Information Center. Cancer incidence rates [Internet]. Goyang: National Cancer Center; 2024 [cited 2024 Feb 21].
  3. National Cancer Information Center. Cancer prevalence rates [Internet]. Goyang: National Cancer Center; 2024 [cited 2024 Feb 21].
  4. Statistics Korea. 2022 Cause of death statistics [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea; 2023 [cited 2024 Feb 21].
  5. Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, Sloan JA, Carriere KC, O'Neil JO'Neil J, et al. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 1997;277:1485-92.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Arora NK, McHorney CA. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Med Care 2000;38:335-41.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Ma CD, Zhou Q, Nie XQ, Liu GY, Di GH, Wu JWu J, et al. Breast cancer in Chinese elderly women: pathological and clinical characteristics and factors influencing treatment patterns. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2009;71:258-65.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Saxena N, Hartman M, Hussain Z, Bhoo Pathy N, Iau P, Lee SCLee SC, et al. Impact of older age on presentation, management and outcome of breast cancer in the multi-ethnic Asian population of Singapore. J Geriatr Oncol 2011;2:50-7.
    CrossRef
  9. Wei R, Lau SS, Cheung PS. Breast carcinoma in Chinese women: does age affect treatment choice and outcome? Asian J Surg 2010;33:97-102.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Hurria A, Naylor M, Cohen HJ. Improving the quality of cancer care in an aging population: recommendations from an IOM report. JAMA 2013;310:1795-6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Pang A, Ho S, Lee SC. Cancer physicians' attitude towards treatment of the elderly cancer patient in a developed Asian country. BMC Geriatr 2013;13:35.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Wan-Chow-Wah D, Monette J, Monette M, Sourial N, Retornaz F, Batist GBatist G, et al. Difficulties in decision making regarding chemotherapy for older cancer patients: a census of cancer physicians. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2011;78:45-58.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Hurria A, Wong FL, Villaluna D, Bhatia S, Chung CT, Mortimer JMortimer J, et al. Role of age and health in treatment recommendations for older adults with breast cancer: the perspective of oncologists and primary care providers. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5386-92.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Foster JA, Salinas GD, Mansell D, Williamson JC, Casebeer LL. How does older age influence oncologists' cancer management? Oncologist 2010;15:584-92.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Hurria A, Naeim A, Elkin E, Limaye S, Grover A, Hudis CHudis C, et al. Adjuvant treatment recommendations in older women with breast cancer: a survey of oncologists. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2007;61:255-60.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Mohile SG, Magnuson A, Pandya C, Velarde C, Duberstein P, Hurria AHurria A, et al. Community oncologists' decision-making for treatment of older patients with cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16:301-9.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Niemier JY, Claudot F, Nguyen-Thi PL, Hubert JM, Rousselot H, Benetos ABenetos A, et al. Improvement of decision-making criteria for the care of elderly cancer patients by general practitioners (Lorraine, France). Clin Interv Aging 2018;13:995-1002.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Moth EB, Kiely BE, Martin A, Naganathan V, Della-Fiorentina S, Honeyball FHoneyball F, et al. Older adults' preferred and perceived roles in decision-making about palliative chemotherapy, decision priorities and information preferences. J Geriatr Oncol 2020;11:626-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Repetto L, Fratino L, Audisio RA, Venturino A, Gianni W, Vercelli MVercelli M, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment adds information to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in elderly cancer patients: an Italian group for geriatric oncology study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:494-502.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Hurria A, Gupta S, Zauderer M, Zuckerman EL, Cohen HJ, Muss HMuss H, et al. Developing a cancer-specific geriatric assessment: a feasibility study. Cancer 2005;104:1998-2005.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Kanesvaran R, Li H, Koo KN, Poon D. Analysis of prognostic factors of comprehensive geriatric assessment and development of a clinical scoring system in elderly Asian patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3620-7.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Kim YJ, Kim JH, Park MS, Lee KW, Kim KI, Bang SMBang SM, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in Korean elderly cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2011;137:839-47.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Caillet P, Canoui-Poitrine F, Vouriot J, Berle M, Reinald N, Krypciak SKrypciak S, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in the decision-making process in elderly patients with cancer: ELCAPA study. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3636-42.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Hurria A, Wildes T, Blair SL, Browner IS, Cohen HJ, Deshazo MDeshazo M, et al. Senior adult oncology, version 2.2014: clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014;12:82-126.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Hurria A, Mohile S, Gajra A, Klepin H, Muss H, Chapman AChapman A, et al. Validation of a prediction tool for chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2366-71.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  26. McCleary NJ, Wigler D, Berry D, Sato K, Abrams T, Chan JChan J, et al. Feasibility of computer-based self-administered cancer-specific geriatric assessment in older patients with gastrointestinal malignancy. Oncologist 2013;18:64-72.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  27. Hamaker ME, Schiphorst AH, ten Bokkel Huinink D, Schaar C, van Munster BC. The effect of a geriatric evaluation on treatment decisions for older cancer patients--a systematic review. Acta Oncol 2014;53:289-96.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Magnuson A, Allore H, Cohen HJ, Mohile SG, Williams GR, Chapman AChapman A, et al. Geriatric assessment with management in cancer care: current evidence and potential mechanisms for future research. J Geriatr Oncol 2016;7:242-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  29. Maggiore RJ, Gorawara-Bhat R, Levine SK, Dale W. Perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of hematology/oncology fellows toward incorporating geriatrics in their training. J Geriatr Oncol 2014;5:106-15.
    Pubmed CrossRef

 

August 2024, 25 (2)