Randomized Trial Of A Perioperative Geriatric Intervention For Older Adults With Cancer.

12012 Background: Older adults with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative (post-op) length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, and readmissions. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention in older adults with GI cancers undergoing surgery. Methods: We randomly assigned patients age ≥65 with GI cancers planning to undergo surgical resection to receive a perioperative geriatric intervention or usual care. Intervention patients met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and post-op as an inpatient consultant. The geriatrician conducted a geriatric assessment and made recommendations to the surgical/oncology teams. The primary end point was post-op LOS. Secondary end points included post-op ICU use, readmission risk, and patient-reported symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and depression symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale). We conducted both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. Results: From 9/13/16-4/30/19, we randomized 160 patients (72.4% enrollment rate; median age = 72 [65-92]). The ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). The PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received both pre- and post-op intervention components. In ITT analyses, we found no significant differences between intervention and usual care in post-op LOS (7.2 v 8.2 days, P = .37), ICU use (23.3% v 32.4%, p = .23), and readmission rates within 90 days of surgery (21.7% v 25.0%, p = .65). Intervention patients reported lower depression symptoms (B = -1.39, P < .01) at post-op day 5 and fewer moderate/severe ESAS symptoms at post-op day 60 (B = -1.09, P = .02). In PP analyses, intervention patients had significantly shorter post-op LOS (5.9 v 8.2 days, P = .02) and lower rates of post-op ICU use (13.3% v 32.4%, p < .05), but readmission rates were not significantly different (16.7% v 25.0%, p = .36). Conclusions: Although this perioperative geriatric intervention did not have a significant impact on the primary end point in ITT analysis, we found encouraging results in several secondary outcomes and for the subgroup of patients who received the planned intervention. Future studies of this perioperative geriatric intervention should include efforts, such as telehealth visits, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02810652 .