GUIDED GERIATRIC INTERVENTIONS (GI) IN OLDER ADULTS WITH CANCER: WHAT, HOW, AND FOR WHOM? THE FRENCH PACA EST COHORT EXPERIENCE

11548 Background: Some previous studies in geriatric oncology have described the GI and their adherence. Today’s challenge is to screen patients needing specific GI and repeated Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments (CGA). We recently analyzed a phenotype of patients requiring more GI (Boulahssass et al, Cancers 2019). The main purpose of the present study is to compare types of GI implemented, according to patient frailty levels, in order to better understand the necessary care plan. Methods: Between April 2012 and May 2018, 3530 consecutive patients with solid tumors were enrolled in this multicentric, prospective cohort. 3140 patients (mean age:82y) were finally included and a CGA was performed at Baseline. Twelve GI were standardized, individualized or based on experience if no guidelines were available. Within 1 month, geriatricians including patients in the cohort received standardized training. Logistic regression was performed to compare types of GI in the 3 groups using the Balducci Score (B1/B2/B3). Results: 8819 GI were implemented for the 3140 patients. On average, fit patients had 1.5 GI (n = 146), vulnerable patients 2.4 GI (n = 1568) and frail patients 3.3 GI (n = 1426). We observed no significant differences between the 3 groups concerning specific pain management (Fit vs B2: p = 0.19; Fit vs B3: p = 0.57) and psychological care (Fit vs B2:p = 0.03; Fit vs B3:p = 0.24). In vulnerable and frail patients, we recorded more significant GI for nutritional care, delirium prevention, comorbidity management, nursing interventions, social worker interventions, treatment modifications for optimization or iatrogenic disorders and physiotherapy, with the highest Odds Ratio for nursing interventions (Fit vs B2 OR:2.9 p = 0.011; Fit vs B3 OR:9 P < 0.001) and physiotherapy (Fit vs B2:OR 4.3 p < 0.001; Fit vs B3:OR:9 p < 0.001). B3 patients had significantly more GI on care pathways modifications (OR:3.1, p = 0.002) and caregiver care (OR:2, p = 0.049). Conclusions: Fit patients also needed GI. We observed differences in types of GI between the groups. However, the aims and levels also seemed to differ and need further studies to analyze their impact.