The 2005 Update Committee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcome that justifies the use of CSFs, regardless of impact on other factors, when the risk of FN is approximately 20% and no other equally effective regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients who are at high risk based on age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. CSF use allows a modest to moderate increase in dose-density and/or dose-intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Dose-dense regimens should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Prophylactic CSF for patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma aged 65 years and older treated with curative chemotherapy (CHOP or more aggressive regimens) should be given to reduce the incidence of FN and infections. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death due to injury to other organs, includes the prompt administration of CSF or pegylated G-CSF.

BACKGROUND: Tools are lacking to assess the individual risk of severe toxicity from chemotherapy. Such tools would be especially useful for older patients, who vary considerably in terms of health status and functional reserve. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, multicentric study of patients aged !70 years who were starting chemotherapy. Grade 4 hematologic (H) or grade 3/4 nonhematologic (NH) toxicity according to version 3.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was defined as severe. Twenty-four parameters were assessed. Toxicity of the regimen (Chemotox) was adjusted using an index to estimate the average per-patient risk of chemotherapy toxicity (the MAX2 index). In total, 562 patients were accrued, and 518 patients were evaluable and were split randomly (2:1 ratio) into a derivation cohort and a validation cohort. RESULTS: Severe toxicity was observed in 64% of patients. The Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients (CRASH) score was constructed along 2 subscores: H toxicity and NH toxicity. Predictors of H toxicity were lymphocytes, aspartate aminotransferase level, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living score, lactate dehydrogenase level, diastolic blood pressure, and Chemotox. The best model included the 4 latter predictors (risk categories: low, 7%; medium-low, 23%; medium-high, 54%; and high, 100%, respectively; P trend < .001). Predictors of NH toxicity were hemoglobin, creatinine clearance, albumin, selfrated health, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance, Mini-Mental Status score, Mini-Nutritional Assessment score, and Chemotox. The 4 latter predictors provided the best model (risk categories: 33%, 46%, 67%, and 93%, respectively; P trend < .001). The combined risk categories were 50%, 58%, 77%, and 79%, respectively; P trend < .001). Bootstrap internal validation and independent sample validation demonstrated stable risk categorization and P trend < .001. CONCLUSIONS: The CRASH score distinguished several risk levels of severe toxicity. The split score discriminated better than the combined score. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first score systematically integrating both chemotherapy and patient risk for older patients and has a potential for future clinical application. Cancer 2012;118:3377-

Comorbidity needs to be assessed independently from functional status. Both the Charlson and CIRS-G scales are reliable tools for use in trials of older cancer patients. Both can be tested in further studies as predictors of outcomes such as toxicity of treatment, changes in functional status, or survival.

The management of cancer in the older aged person is an increasingly common problem. The questions arising from this problem are: Is the patient going to die with cancer or of cancer? Is the patient able to tolerate the stress of antineoplastic therapy? Is the treatment producing more benefits than harm? This article explores a practical, albeit evolving, approach to these questions including a multidimensional assessment of the older person and simple pharmacologic interventions that may ameliorate the toxicity of antineoplastic agents. Age may be construed as a progressive loss of stress tolerance, due to decline in functional reserve of multiple organ systems, high prevalence of comorbid conditions, limited socioeconomic support, reduced cognition, and higher prevalence of depression. Aging is highly individualized: chronologic age may not reflect the functional reserve and life expectancy of an individual. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) best accounts for the diversities in the geriatric population. The advantages of the CGA include:Recognition of potentially treatable conditions such as depression or malnutrition, that may lessen the tolerance of cancer treatment and be reversed with proper intervention; Assessment of individual functional reserve; Gross estimate of individual life expectancy; and Adoption of a common language to classify older cancer patients. The CGA allows the practitioner to recognize at least three stages of aging:People who are functionally independent and without comorbidity, who are candidates for any form of standard cancer treatment, with the possible exception of bone marrow transplant. People who are frail (dependence in one or more activities of daily living, three or more comorbid conditions, one or more geriatric syndromes), who are a candidate only for palliative treatment; and People in between, who may benefit from some special pharmacological approach, such as reduction in the initial dose of chemotherapy with subsequent does escalations. The pharmacological changes of age include decreased renal excretion of drugs and increased susceptibility to myelosuppression, mucositis, cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity. Based on these findings, the proposal was made that all persons aged 70 and older, treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy of dose intensity comparable to CHOP, receive prophylactic growth factor treatment, and that the hemoglobin of these patients be maintained >/=12 gm/dl.

These findings support the view that many breast cancer patients experienced heightened fatigue after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Results yield a profile of women who are at increased risk for heightened fatigue after chemotherapy and suggest ways to intervene clinically to prevent or reduce fatigue in this patient population.

This study investigated the characteristics, course, and correlates of fatigue in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Fifty-four patients were assessed before the start of chemotherapy and during the first three treatment cycles. An age-matched sample of women with no cancer history was assessed at similar time intervals for comparison purposes. Results indicated that breast cancer patients experienced worse fatigue than women with no cancer history. These differences were evident before and after patients started chemotherapy. In addition, fatigue worsened among patients after treatment started. More severe fatigue before treatment was associated with poorer performance status and the presence of fatigue-related symptoms (e.g., sleep problems and muscle weakness). Increases in fatigue after chemotherapy started were associated with continued fatigue-related symptoms and the development of chemotherapy side effects (e.g., nausea and mouth sores). These findings demonstrate the clinical significance of fatigue in breast cancer patients before and during adjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Results also suggest that aggressive management of common side effects, such as nausea and pain, may be useful in relieving chemotherapy-related fatigue.

Cancer is largely a disease of older people. With the relatively recent expansive growth within the geriatric population, a number of pressing biological and clinical questions that currently remain unanswered need to be addressed. These include what effect age itself has on the development or growth of cancer, and what are the benefits and risks of cancer prevention and treatment for the older person? New insights into the underlying biological processes of ageing provide a frame of reference for addressing these and other related questions.

Skin cancer is a worldwide, emerging clinical need in the elderly white population, with a steady increase in incidence rates, morbidity and related medical costs. Skin cancer is a heterogeneous group of cancers comprising cutaneous melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC), which predominantly affect elderly patients, aged older than 65 years. Melanoma has distinct clinical presentations in the elderly patient and represents a challenging question in terms of clinical management. NMSC includes the basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and presents a wide disease spectrum in the elderly population, ranging from low-risk to high-risk tumours, advanced and inoperable disease. Treatment decisions for NMSC are preferentially based on tumour characteristics, patient’s chronological age and physician’s preferences and operational settings. Several treatment options are available for NMSC, from surgery to non-invasive/medical therapies, but patient-based factors, such as geriatric comorbidities and patient’s life expectancy, do not frequently modulate treatment goals. In melanoma, age-related variations in clinical management are significant and may frequently lead to under-treatment, limiting access to advanced surgical and medical treatments. Clinical decision-making in the care of elderly skin cancer patient should ideally implement a geriatric assessment, prioritizing patient-based factors and efficiently differentiating fit from frail cancer patients. Current clinical practice guidelines for NMSC and melanoma only partially address geriatric aspects of cancer care, such as frailty, limited life-expectancy, geriatric comorbidities and treatment compliance. We review the recent evidence on the scope and problem of skin cancer in the elderly population as well as age-related variations in its clinical management, highlighting the potential role of a geriatric approach in optimizing dermato-oncological care.