4.7 Review

Improving the Quality of Survivorship for Older Adults With Cancer

期刊

CANCER
卷 122, 期 16, 页码 2459-2468

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30053

关键词

aging; elderly; quality of life; research priorities; survivorship

类别

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [U13 AG038151]
  2. American Cancer Society
  3. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute [4634]
  4. James Wilmot Cancer Institute
  5. Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health) [U10CA18082, 1UG1CA189823]
  6. National Cancer Institute [UG1 CA189961]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In May 2015, the Cancer and Aging Research Group, in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging through a U13 grant, convened a conference to identify research priorities to help design and implement intervention studies to improve the quality of life and survivorship of older, frailer adults with cancer. Conference attendees included researchers with multidisciplinary expertise and advocates. It was concluded that future intervention trials for older adults with cancer should: 1) rigorously test interventions to prevent the decline of or improve health status, especially interventions focused on optimizing physical performance, nutritional status, and cognition while undergoing cancer treatment; 2) use standardized care plans based on geriatric assessment findings to guide targeted interventions; and 3) incorporate the principles of geriatrics into survivorship care plans. Also highlighted was the need to integrate the expertise of interdisciplinary team members into geriatric oncology research, improve funding mechanisms to support geriatric oncology research, and disseminate high-impact results to the research and clinical community. In conjunction with the 2 prior U13 meetings, this conference provided the framework for future research to improve the evidence base for the clinical care of older adults with cancer. (C) 2016 American Cancer Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据