Table 3.

Summary of findings from systematic reviews reporting on the impact of GA

			Reported outcomes as mapped to core areas of COMET taxonomy
Author (Year)	Number/Types of included studies	GA as defined by review criteria	Life impacta	Resource Use
			Delivery of Care: Impact on treatment decisions	Need for further intervention: Recommendations following GA
Puts (2012) [14]	73 – cohort, cross-sectional or chart reviews	Not explicitly defined	GA led to changes in treatment plan for 40–50% patients in 2/4 studies	GA led to interventions prior to treatment initiation reported in 3 studies.
Puts (2014) [23]	34 - longitudinal observation, cross-sectional, retrospective studies, phase II/III trials	Not explicitly defined	Estimated weighted modifications to treatment plan following GA was 23.2% across 6 studies	Not available
Caillet (2014) [24]	35 - prospective, cross-sectional, randomised trials	Assessment of at least five CGA domains	CGA influenced treatment decision in 21–49% of patients across 5 studies. -Impairment in function or malnutrition reported as strongest effect for changes across 5 studies	GA led to interventions for patients reported in 2 studies. Interventions ranged from 19–70% for one study, while another studies reported 25% of patients received interventions.
Versteeg (2014) [31]	13 - cohort studies, non-randomized trials	Not explicitly defined	GA led to treatment changes for 21–53% of patients across 5 studies, mostly to less intensive treatment option. -Impairment in function or malnutrition commonly reported across 3 studies as reasons for treatment changes	GA led to interventions for 25.7% of patients in single study.
Hamaker (2014) [15]	10 – cohort studies	GA involved geriatric consult, or assessment by oncology team or HCP, involving ≥3 domain	GA led to modification in median of 32% of patients across 6 studies.	GA based interventions recommended in median 83% of patients across 8 studies
Schulkes (2016) [25]	18 – cohort studies	Assessment using validated tools, composing ≥ 2 domains	GA led to changes in 45% of oncologic treatment decisions reported in single study.	GA based interventions recommended for 10–75% of patients across two studies.
Szumacher (2018) [26]	12 - retrospective, cross-sectional, prospective trials	Not explicitly defined.	Treatment modifications reported in 1/2 studies following CGA	Not available
Hamaker (2018) [39]	35 - RCTs, cohort studies, conference abstracts	GA involved geriatric consult, or assessment by oncology team or ≥ 2 medical HCP, involving ≥3 domain	GA led to modification in median of 28% of patients across 11 studies, mostly to less intensive treatment option.	GA based interventions recommended for median of 72% of patients across 19 studies.
Hamaker (2022) [40]	61 - cohort studies, RCTs, conference abstracts	GA involved geriatric consult, or assessment by oncology team or ≥ 2 medical HCP, involving ≥3 domain	GA led to treatment modification in median 31% of patients across 21 studies, mostly to less intensive treatment option	GA based interventions recommended for over 70% of patients across 33 studies.
Disalvo (2023) [38]	10 - RCTs, phase 2 pilot RCTs prospective cohort study	CGA/GA with intervention (GA evaluate <3 domains were excluded)	CGA impacted treatment plans (e.g., dose reduction, lower intensity, treatment modifications) in 4/6 studies.	GA based interventions implemented for across six trials. Common interventions differed across trials, with medication being the most common across 3/5 trials.

^a The outcome domain included in this Core area include delivery of care such as treatment adherence and tolerability. RCT randomised controlled trials, HCP healthcare professional