Purpose To provide guidance regarding the practical assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods An Expert Panel was convened to develop clinical practice guideline recommendations based on a systematic review of the medical literature. Results A total of 68 studies met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Recommendations In patients ≥ 65 years receiving chemotherapy, geriatric assessment (GA) should be used to identify vulnerabilities that are not routinely captured in oncology assessments. Evidence supports, at a minimum, assessment of function, comorbidity, falls, depression, cognition, and nutrition. The Panel recommends instrumental activities of daily living to assess for function, a thorough history or validated tool to assess comorbidity, a single question for falls, the Geriatric Depression Scale to screen for depression, the Mini-Cog or the Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration test to screen for cognitive impairment, and an assessment of unintentional weight loss to evaluate nutrition. Either the CARG (Cancer and Aging Research Group) or CRASH (Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients) tools are recommended to obtain estimates of chemotherapy toxicity risk; the Geriatric-8 or Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 can help to predict mortality. Clinicians should use a validated tool listed at ePrognosis to estimate noncancer-based life expectancy ≥ 4 years. GA results should be applied to develop an integrated and individualized plan that informs cancer management and to identify nononcologic problems amenable to intervention. Collaborating with caregivers is essential to implementing GA-guided interventions. The Panel suggests that clinicians take into account GA results when recommending chemotherapy and that the information be provided to patients and caregivers to guide treatment decision making. Clinicians should implement targeted, GA-guided interventions to manage nononcologic problems. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Context To better target services to those who may benefit, many guidelines recommend incorporating life expectancy into clinical decisions. Objectives We conducted a systematic review to help physicians assess the quality and limitations of prognostic indices for mortality in older adults. Data Sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar through November 2011. Study Selection We included indices if they were validated and predicted absolute risk of mortality in patients whose average age was ≥ 60. We excluded indices that estimated ICU, disease-specific, or in-hospital mortality. Data Extraction For each prognostic index, we extracted data on clinical setting, potential for bias, generalizability, and accuracy. Results We reviewed 21,593 titles to identify 16 indices that predict risk of mortality from 6-months to 5 years for older adults in a variety of clinical settings: the community (six indices), the nursing home (two indices), and the hospital (eight indices). At least 1 measure of transportability was tested for all but 3 indices. By our measures, no study was free from potential bias. While 13 indices had c-statistics ≥ 0.70, none of the indices had c-statistics ≥ 0.90. Only two indices were independently validated by investigators who were not involved in the index’s development. Conclusion We identified several indices for predicting overall mortality in different patient groups; future studies need to independently test their accuracy in heterogeneous populations and their ability to improve clinical outcomes before their widespread use can be recommended.

A B S T R A C T PurposeFew data are available on breast cancer characteristics, treatment, and survival for women age 80 years or older. Patients and MethodsWe used the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data set from 1992 to 2003 to examine tumor characteristics, treatments (mastectomy, breast-conserving surgery [BCS] with radiation therapy or alone, or no surgery), and outcomes of women age 80 years or older (80 to 84, 85 to 89, Ն 90 years) with stage I/II breast cancer compared with younger women (age 67 to 79 years). We used Cox proportional hazard models to examine the impact of age on breast cancer-related and other causes of death. Analyses were performed within stage, adjusted for tumor and sociodemographic characteristics, treatments received, and comorbidities. ResultsIn total, 49,616 women age 67 years or older with stage I/II disease were included. Tumor characteristics (grade, hormone receptivity) were similar across age groups. Treatment with BCS alone increased with age, especially after age 80. The risk of dying from breast cancer increased with age, significantly after age 80. For stage I disease, the adjusted hazard ratio of dying from breast cancer for women age Ն 90 years compared with women age 67 to 69 years was 2.6 (range, 2.0 to 3.4). Types of treatments received were significantly associated with age and comorbidity, with age as the stronger predictor (26% of women age Ն 80 years without comorbidity received BCS alone or no surgery compared with 6% of women age 67 to 79 years). ConclusionWomen age Ն 80 years have breast cancer characteristics similar to those of younger women yet receive less aggressive treatment and experience higher mortality from early-stage breast cancer. Future studies should focus on identifying tumor and patient characteristics to help target treatments to the oldest women most likely to benefit.

No abstract

Importance Guidelines recommend individualizing screening mammography decisions for women 75 and older. However, little pragmatic guidance is available to inform this approach. Objective To provide an evidence-based approach to individualizing decision-making about screening mammography that considers older women's risk of breast cancer and the potential benefits and harms of screening in the context of varying life expectancies and preferences. Evidence Acquisition We searched PubMed for English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals published from January 1, 1990 to February 1, 2014 to identify risk factors for late-life breast cancer in women 65 and older and to quantify the benefits and harms of screening mammography for women 75 and older. Findings Age is the major risk factor for late-life breast cancer. In general, traditional breast cancer risk factors (e.g., age at first birth, age at menarche) that represent hormonal exposures in the distant past are less predictive of late-life breast cancer than factors indicating recent exposure to endogenous hormones (e.g., bone mass, obesity). None of the randomized trials of screening mammography included women over age 74, such that it is uncertain whether screening mammography is beneficial in these women. Observational data favor extending screening mammography to older women who have a life expectancy > 5-10 years. Modeling studies suggest approximately 2 fewer women per 1,000 die from breast cancer if women in their 70's continue biennial screening for 10 years, versus stopping screening at age 69. Potential benefits must be weighed with potential harms of continued screening over ten years, which include false-positive mammograms (~200 per 1,000 women screened) and overdiagnosis (~13 per 1,000 women screened). Providing these frequencies both verbally and graphically may help inform older women's decision-making. Conclusions and Relevance For women with less than a 5-10 year life expectancy, recommendations to stop screening mammography should be framed around increased harms and the need to refocus health promotion on interventions likely to be beneficial over a shorter timeframe. For women with a life expectancy > 5-10 years, the decision about whether potential benefits of screening outweigh harms is a value judgment that requires a realistic understanding of screening outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information is becoming increasingly important for clinical decision-making.OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an index to predict 5-year mortality among community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:A total of 24,115 individuals aged >65 who responded to the 1997-2000 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) with follow-up through 31 December 2002 from the National Death Index; 16,077 were randomly selected for the development cohort and 8,038 for the validation cohort.MEASUREMENTS: 39 risk factors (functional measures, illnesses, behaviors, demographics) were included in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to determine factors independently associated with mortality. Risk scores were calculated for participants using points derived from the final model's beta coefficients. To evaluate external validity, we compared survival by quintile of risk between the development and validation cohorts.RESULTS: Seventeen percent of participants had died by the end of the study. The final model included 11 variables: age (1 point for 70-74 up to 7 points for >85); male: 3 points; BMI <25: 2 points; perceived health (good: 1 point, fair/poor: 2 points); emphysema: 2 points; cancer: 2 points; diabetes: 2 points; dependent in instrumental activities of daily living: 2 points; difficulty walking: 3 points; smoker-former: 1 point, smoker-current: 3 points; past year hospitalizationsone: 1 point, >2: 3 points. We observed close agreement between 5-year mortality in the two cohorts; which ranged from 5% in the lowest risk quintile to 50% in the highest risk quintile in the validation cohort.CONCLUSIONS: This validated mortality index can be used to account for participant life expectancy in analyses using NHIS data.

OBJECTIVES To examine receipt of mammography screening by life expectancy (LE) among women ≥75 years. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional survey of community dwelling US women ≥75 years that participated in the 2008 or 2010 National Health Interview Survey. MEASUREMENTS Using an index we previously developed and validated, we categorized women according to life expectancy (>9-years, 5–9 years, <5-years). We examined receipt of mammography screening in the past 2 years by life expectancy adjusting for sociodemographics, access to care, preventive orientation (e.g., receipt of flu vaccination), and receipt of a clinician recommendation for screening. RESULTS Of 2,266 respondents, 27.1% had >9-years LE, 53.4% had 5–9 years LE, and 19.5% had <5-years LE. Overall, 55.7% reported receiving mammography screening in the past 2 years. Life expectancy was strongly associated with receipt of screening (p<0.001); yet, 36.1% of women with <5-years LE were screened while 29.2% of women with >9-years LE were not screened. A clinician recommendation for screening was the strongest predictor of screening independent of life expectancy. Higher educational attainment, age, receipt of flu vaccination, and history of benign breast biopsy, were also independently associated with being screened. CONCLUSION Despite uncertainty of benefit, many women >75 years are screened with mammography. Life expectancy is strongly associated with receipt of screening which may reflect clinicians and patients appropriately considering LE in screening decisions. However, 36% of women with short LEs are still screened suggesting new interventions are needed to further improve targeting of screening by LE. Patient decision aids and guidelines encouraging clinicians to consider patient LE in screening decisions may improve care.

BACKGROUND: Despite uncertain benefit, many women over age 80 (oldest-old) receive screening mammography.