Purpose Older patients with colon cancer (CC) are vulnerable to chemotherapy toxicity and death. Establishing simple scores specific for patients with CC to predict severe chemotoxicity or early death is needed to select the best treatment strategy. Subjects, Materials, and Methods This prospective multicenter study included patients aged ≥70 years with CC receiving adjuvant or first‐line metastatic chemotherapy. Frailty markers (nutrition, physical activity, energy, mobility, strength), comprehensive geriatric assessment (functional status, comorbidities, falls, nutrition, cognition, and depression), and usual laboratory parameters were collected. Logistic or Cox regression was used to examine at 500 days the association between frailty markers, comprehensive geriatric assessment, laboratory parameters, and grade 3–4 toxicity or death. Results A total of 97 patients (median age, 79.0 years) received adjuvant (37.1%) or metastatic (62.9%) chemotherapy. During the first 500 days, grade 3–4 toxicity occurred in 49.5%, and 30% died. The predictive model for grade 3–4 toxicity combined (polychemotherapy × 3) + (hypoalbuminemia <32 g/L × 2) + (abnormal grip strength × 1.5) + C‐reactive protein >11 mg/L + Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG‐PS), cutoff score >3. The predictive model for death combined (metastasis × 5) + (age × 2) + alkaline phosphatase >100 IU/mL + sex (female) + abnormal grip strength + ECOG‐PS, cutoff score >6. For chemotoxicity prediction, sensitivity was 81.6% and specificity 71.4%. For death prediction, sensitivity was 89.7% and specificity was 83.6%. Conclusion These simple and efficient “ColonPrediscores” will help to better identify older patients with CC with increased risk of chemotherapy‐related toxicity and/or death. Implications for Practice The two scores assessed in this study, called “ColonPrediscores”, offer a major advantage in that they do not need a previous complete geriatric assessment, which makes them an easy‐to‐use tool in oncologic settings.
Background Nutritional impairment is common in cancer patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Only few studies focused on cachexia. We assessed the prevalence of cachexia in older cancer patients, identified associated risk factors, and evaluated its impact on 6 month overall mortality. Methods A French nationwide cross‐sectional survey (performed in 55 geriatric oncology clinics) of older cancer patients aged ≥70 referred for geriatric assessment prior to treatment choice and initiation. Demographic, clinical, and nutritional data were collected. The first outcome was cachexia, defined as loss of more than 5% of bodyweight over the previous 6 months, or a body mass index below 20 kg/m2 with weight loss of more than 2%, or sarcopenia (an impaired Strength, Assistance with walking, Rise from chair, Climb stairs and Falls score) with weight loss of more than 2%. The second outcome was 6 month overall mortality. Results Of the 1030 patients included in the analysis [median age (interquartile range): 83 (79–87); males: 48%; metastatic cancer: 42%; main cancer sites: digestive tract (29%) and breast (16%)], 534 [52% (95% confidence interval: 49–55%)] had cachexia. In the multivariate analysis, patients with breast (P < 0.001), gynaecologic (P < 0.001), urinary (P < 0.001), skin (P < 0.001), and haematological cancers (P = 0.006) were less likely to have cachexia than patients with colorectal cancer. Patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancers (including liver and pancreatic cancers; P = 0.052), with previous surgery for cancer (P = 0.001), with metastases (P = 0.047), poor performance status (≥2; P < 0.001), low food intake (P < 0.001), unfeasible timed up‐and‐go test (P = 0.002), cognitive disorders (P = 0.03) or risk of depression (P = 0.005), were more likely to have cachexia. At 6 months, 194 (20.5%) deaths were observed. Cachexia was associated with 6 month mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.05–2.11) independently of age, in/outpatient status, cancer site, metastatic status, cancer treatment, dependency, cognition, and number of daily medications. Conclusions More than half of older patients with cancer managed in geriatric oncology clinics had cachexia. The factors associated with cachexia were upper gastrointestinal tract cancer, metastases, poor performance status, poor mobility, previous surgery for cancer, cognitive disorders, a risk of depression, and low food intake. Cachexia was independently associated with 6 month mortality.
5508 Background: The Geriatric Vulnerability Score (GVS) combining albumin, lymphocyte count, ADL, IADL and HADS scores has been reported (Falandry C Ann Oncol 2013) to identify vulnerable elderly OC patients (pts) as those with a GVS≥3. For such pts, Carboplatin (Cb) monotherapy or weekly Cb plus paclitaxel (Pa) are often proposed as an alternative to Cb-Pa given every 3 weeks. Methods: Pts ≥70 yrs with first line FIGO stage III/IV epithelial OC were screened for GVS. Those with GVS≥3 were randomized to receive either arm A: Cb AUC5-6 + Pa 175mg/m², d1q3week or arm B: Cb AUC5-6 d1q3week or arm C:weekly Cb AUC2 + Pa 60mg/m² d1-d8-d15 q4week. Primary endpoint is treatment feasibility defined as the ability to complete 6 chemotherapy courses without disease progression, early treatment stopping due to unacceptable toxicity or death. Inclusion of 240 pts was planned. Results: Among 444 screened pts, 120 were randomized from 12/2013 to 04/2017 (armA = B = C = 40). Pts characteristics were well balanced between arms A-B-C respectively: median age (79-82-80 yrs), FIGO stage IV (32-37-27%), primary surgery (65-72-70%), absence of macroscopic residuals (CC-0) (7-5-7%), ECOG≥2 (50-50-47%). Feasibility per protocol for arms A-B-C is 65%, 47% and 60% (p = 0.15). Main reasons for treatment arrest are treatment toxicity (A:20%; B:15%; C:22.5%; p = 0.771) and disease progression (A:7.5%; B:30%; C:2%; p = 0.004). Median PFS for arm A-B-C are 12.5 mos (95%CI 10.3-15.3), 4.8 (3.8-15.3) and 8.3 (6.6-15.3), respectively (p < 0.001) and median OS for arm A-B-C is not reached (NR) (21, NR), 7.4 (5.3-NR) and 17.3 (10.8-NR), respectively (p = 0.001). At the pre-planned intermediate analysis, the IDMC recommended to prematurely close the study as survival in armB was found significantly worse and the number of potential pts required to find a significant difference between both Cb-Pa regimens (arms A&C) was out of reach. Conclusions: Compared to 3-weekly and weekly Cb-Pa regimens, Cb single agent was reported to be less active with significant worse survival outcome in vulnerable elderly pts. In this population Cb-Pa combination remains a standard. Clinical trial information: NCT02001272.
BackgroundCancer incidence and social isolation increase along with advanced age, and social isolation potentiates the relative risk of death by cancer. Once spotted, social isolation can be averted with the intervention of a multidisciplinary team. Techniques of automation and remote assistance have already demonstrated their positive impact on falls prevention and quality of life (QoL), though little is known about their impact on socially isolated elderly patients supported for cancer.The primary objective of the PREDOMOS study is to evaluate the impact of establishing a Program of Social intervention associated with techniques of Domotic and Remote assistance (PS-DR) on the improvement of QoL of elderly isolated patients, treated for locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The secondary objectives include treatment failure, tolerance, survival, and autonomy.Methods/designThis trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label, two-parallel group study. The setting is 10 French oncogeriatric centers. Inclusion criteria are patients aged at least 70 years with a social isolation risk and a histological diagnosis of cancer, locally advanced or metastatic disease. The groups are (1) the control group, receiving usual care; (2) the experimental group, receiving usual care associating with monthly social assistance, domotic, and remote assistance. Participants are randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio. Evaluation times involve inclusion (randomization) and follow-up (12 months). The primary endpoint is QoL at 3 months (via European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30); secondary endpoints are social isolation, time to treatment failure, toxicity, dose response-intensity, survival, autonomy, and QoL at 6 months. For the sample size, 320 individuals are required to obtain 90% power to detect a 10-point difference (standard deviation 25) in QoL score between the two groups (20% loss to follow-up patients expected).DiscussionThe randomized controlled design is the most appropriate design to demonstrate the efficacy of a new experimental strategy (Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group classification). National and international recommendations could be updated based on the findings of this study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02829762. Registered on 29 June 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1894-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.