Life expectancy in older adults with advanced cancer: Evaluation of a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model

Objectives: Oncologists estimate patients' prognosis to guide care. Evidence suggests oncologists tend to overestimate life expectancy, which can lead to care with questionable benefits. Information obtained from geriatric assessment may improve prognostication for older adults. In this study, we created a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model for older adults with advanced cancer and compared its performance to alternative models. Materials and methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile) capturing geriatric assessment and vital status up to one year for adults age ≥ 70 years with advanced cancer. Oncologists estimated life expectancy as 0–6 months, 7–12 months, and > 1 year. Three statistical models were developed: (1) a model including age, sex, cancer type, and stage (basic model), (2) basic model + Karnofsky Performance Status (≤50, 60–70, and 80+) (KPS model), and (3) basic model +16 binary indicators of geriatric assessment impairments (GA model). Cox regression was used to model one-year survival; c-indices and time-dependent c-statistics assessed model discrimination and stratified survival curves assessed model calibration. Results: We included 484 participants; mean age was 75; 48% had gastrointestinal or lung cancer. Overall, 43% of patients died within one year. Oncologists classified prognosis accurately for 55% of patients, overestimated for 35%, and underestimated for 10%. C-indices were 0.61 (basic model), 0.62 (KPS model), and 0.63 (GA model). The GA model was well-calibrated. Conclusions: The GA model showed moderate discrimination for survival, similar to alternative models, but calibration was improved. Further research is needed to optimize geriatric assessment-based prognostic models for use in older adults with advanced cancer

Association of Prognostic Understanding with Health Care Use among Older Adults with Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: A poor prognostic understanding regarding curability is associated with lower odds of hospice use among patients with cancer. However, the association between poor prognostic understanding or prognostic discordance and health care use among older adults with advanced incurable cancers is not well characterized. Objective: To evaluate the association of poor prognostic understanding and patient-oncologist prognostic discordance with hospitalization and hospice use among older adults with advanced cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial that recruited patients from October 29, 2014, to April 28, 2017. Data were collected from community oncology practices affiliated with the University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. The parent trial enrolled 541 patients who were aged 70 years or older and were receiving or considering any line of cancer treatment for incurable solid tumors or lymphomas; the patients' oncologists and caregivers (if available) were also enrolled. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Data were analyzed from January 3 to 16, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: At enrollment, patients and oncologists were asked about their beliefs regarding cancer curability (100%, >50%, 50%, 5 years; answers of >5 years reflected poor prognostic understanding). Any difference between oncologist and patient in response options was considered discordant. Outcomes were any hospitalization and hospice use at 6 months captured by the clinical research associates. Results: Among the 541 patients, the mean (SD) age was 76.6 (5.2) years, 264 of 540 (49%) were female, and 486 of 540 (90%) were White. Poor prognostic understanding regarding curability was reported for 59% (206 of 348) of patients, and poor prognostic understanding regarding life expectancy estimates was reported for 41% (205 of 496) of patients. Approximately 60% (202 of 336) of patient-oncologist dyads were discordant regarding curability, and 72% (356 of 492) of patient-oncologist dyads were discordant regarding life expectancy estimates. Poor prognostic understanding regarding life expectancy estimates was associated with lower odds of hospice use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59). Discordance regarding life expectancy estimates was associated with greater odds of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.01-2.66). Conclusions and Relevance: This study highlights different constructs of prognostic understanding and the need to better understand the association between prognostic understanding and health care use among older adult patients with advanced cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02107443

Coolness:An empirical investigation

Some people are routinely described as “cool,” but it is unknown whether this descriptor conveys trait-like information beyond mere likability or popularity. This is the first systematic quantitative investigation of coolness from a trait perspective. Three studies of North Americans (N = 918) converged to identify personality markers for coolness. Study 1 participants described coolness largely by referring to socially desirable attributes (e.g., social, popular, talented). Study 2 provided further evidence of the relationship between coolness and social desirability, yet also identified systematic discrepancies between valuations of coolness and social desirability. Factor analyses (Studies 2 and 3) indicated that coolness was primarily conceptualized in terms of active, status-promoting, socially desirable characteristics (“Cachet coolness”), though a second orthogonal factor (“Contrarian coolness”) portrayed cool as rebellious, rough, and emotionally controlled. Study 3, which examined peer valuations of coolness, showed considerable overlap with abstract evaluations of the construct. We conclude that coolness is reducible to two conceptually coherent and distinct personality orientations: one outward focused and attuned to external valuations, the other more independent, rebellious, and countercultural. These results have implications for both basic and applied research and theory in personality and social psychology. </jats:p