Predicting frailty domain impairments and mortality with the Hospital Frailty Risk Score among older adults with cancer: the ELCAPA-EDS cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Automated frailty screening tools like the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) are primarily validated for care consumption outcomes. We assessed the predictive ability of the HFRS regarding care consumption outcomes, frailty domain impairments and mortality among older adults with cancer, using the Geriatric 8 (G8) screening tool as a clinical benchmark. METHODS: This retrospective, linkage-based study included patients aged ≥70 years with solid tumor, enrolled in the Elderly Cancer Patients (ELCAPA) multicentre cohort study (2016-2020) and hospitalized in acute care within the Greater Paris University Hospitals. HFRS scores, which encompass hospital-acquired problems and frailty-related syndromes, were calculated using data from the index admission and the preceding 6 months. A multidomain geriatric assessment (GA), including cognition, nutrition, mood, functional status, mobility, comorbidities, polypharmacy, incontinence, and social environment, was conducted at ELCAPA inclusion, with computation of the G8 score. Logistic and Cox regressions measured associations between the G8, HFRS, altered GA domains, length of stay exceeding 10 days, 30-day readmission, and mortality. RESULTS: Among 587 patients included (median age 82 years, metastatic cancer 47.0%), 237 (40.4%) were at increased frailty risk by the HFRS (HFRS>5) and 261 (47.5%) by the G8 (G8≤10). Both HFRS and G8 were significantly associated with cognitive and functional impairments, incontinence, comorbidities, prolonged length of stay, and 30-day mortality. The G8 was associated with polypharmacy, nutritional and mood impairment. DISCUSSION: Although showing significant associations with short-term care consumption, the HFRS could not identify polypharmacy, nutritional, mood and social environment impairments and showed low discriminatory ability across all GA domains.

Serious Health-Related Suffering Impairs Treatments and Survival in Older Patients With Cancer.

CONTEXT: More than half of new cancer cases occurred in older adults. Older patients with cancer are particularly at risk of physical, psycho-existential or socio-familial suffering as defined by the concept of Serious Health-related Suffering (SHS). OBJECTIVES: To assess the direct and indirect effects of physical, psycho-existential and socio-familial dimensions of suffering on cancer treatability, supportive care needs and 12-month mortality in older patients with cancer. METHODS: We included patients with cancer aged 70 years and over from the Elderly Cancer Patients cohort (ELCAPA, Ile-de-France), referred for geriatric assessment between 2007 and 2019 before cancer treatment. Structural equation modelling examined the direct and indirect relationships between SHS dimensions (latent variables), patients' characteristics (age, sex, tumor location and metastatic status, comorbidity, period of care), and outcomes. RESULTS: The analysis included 4,824 patients (mean age: 82.2 ± 4 years; women: 56%; main cancer sites: breast [22.3%], colorectal [15.2%], prostate [8.5%], and lung [6.8%]; metastatic cancer: 46%). Physical suffering had direct pejorative effects on cancer treatability, and mortality (standardized coefficient [SC] = 0.12 [P < 0.001], SC = 0.27 [P < 0.001], respectively). Psycho-existential and socio-familial sufferings had indirect pejorative effects on survival through decreased cancer treatability (SC = 0.08 [P < 0.001], SC = 0.03 [P < 0.001], respectively). Psycho-existential dimension had the main direct effect size on supportive care needs (SC = 0.35 [P < 0.001]) and was interrelated with physical suffering. CONCLUSION: Physical suffering has direct pejorative effect on survival. All dimensions indirectly decrease survival due to poorer cancer treatability. Our findings support concomitant management of physical and psycho-existential suffering.

Disentangling the reasons why older adults do not readily participate in cancer trials: a socio-epidemiological mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Few studies of the under-representation of older adults in cancer clinical trials (CTs) have encompassed the entire pathway from a trial being available in a cancer centre to the patient's invitation to participate and then agreement or refusal to participate. OBJECTIVES: The study's primary objective was to evaluate CT non-invitation and refusal rates. The secondary objectives were to identify factors associated with non-invitation and refusal and to assess experiences of CT participation from the patients' and professionals' perspectives. METHODS: Here, we used mixed methods and a socio-epidemiological approach to analyse reasons for the non-participation of eligible older patients with a solid cancer in cancer CTs in France. RESULTS: We found that non-invitation and low CT participation are mainly related to the patients' sociodemographic characteristics and living conditions (such as social isolation, being single, divorced or widowed, not having children and the absence of close family members) and the healthcare professionals' perceptions of insufficient informal support or a high homecare requirement. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that efforts to increase fair inclusion and the participation of older adults in CTs should target the physician-patient relationship, the medical profession and hospital funding, rather than the patient alone.

Comparison of the prognostic value of eight nutrition-related tools in older patients with cancer: A prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare the ability of eight nutrition-related tools to predict 1-year mortality in older patients with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We studied older patients with cancer from the ELCAPA cohort and who had been referred for a geriatric assessment at one of 14 participating geriatric oncology clinics in the greater Paris area of France between 2007 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: The studied nutrition-related tools/markers were the body mass index (BMI), weight loss (WL) in the previous 6 months, the Mini Nutritional Assessment, the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), the Prognostic Nutritional Index, the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), the modified GPS, and the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1361 patients (median age: 81; males: 51%; metastatic cancer: 49%) were included in the analysis. Most of the tools showed a progressively increase in the mortality risk as the nutrition-related risk category worsened (overall p-values <0.02 for all) after adjustment for age, outpatient status, functional status, severe comorbidities, cognition, mood, cancer treatment strategy, tumour site, and tumour metastasis. All the models were discriminant, with a C-index ranging from 0.748 (for the BMI) to 0.762 (for the GPS). The concordance probability estimate ranged from 0.764 (WL) to 0.773 (GNRI and GPS)). CONCLUSION: After adjustment for relevant prognostic factors, all eight nutrition-related tools/markers were independently associated with 1-year mortality in older patients with cancer. Depending on the time or context of the GA, physicians do not always have the time or means to perform and assess all the tools/markers compared here. However, even when some information is missing, each nutritional tool/marker has prognostic value and can be used in the evaluation.

Cancer mortality and competing causes of death in older adults with cancer: A prospective, multicentre cohort study (ELCAPA-19).

BACKGROUND: In older patients with cancer, comorbidities compete with cancer for cause of death. The objectives were to evaluate cancer mortality and factors associated, according to metastatic status. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2014, patients with cancer aged ≥70 referred for pre-therapeutic geriatric assessment (GA) were included through the ELCAPA prospective cohort study. The underlying cause of death was defined according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. The World Health Organisation definition was used to categorise the cause of death as cancer versus another disease (e.g. cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, etc.) Competing risk models were used. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of the 1445 included patients was 80.2 (5.8) and 48% were women. Most common tumour sites were colorectal (19%), breast (17%) and urinary (15%); 773 patients (49%) had metastases. After a 34-month median follow-up, 706 cancer deaths were observed among 843 deaths. The 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality rates (95% CI) were 12% (9-15) and 34% (29-38) for non-metastatic patients and 43% (39-47) and 79% (75-82) for metastatic patients, respectively. Dependency in activities of daily living and comorbidities were associated with 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality in non-metastatic (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] = 1.68 [0.99-2.85] and 1.69 [1.16-2.45]; and 1.98 [1.08-3.63] and 3.38 [1.47-7.76], respectively) and metastatic patients (aSHR = 2.81 [2.01-3.93] and 2.95 [2.14-4.07]; and 1.63 [1.18-2.25] and 2.06 [1.39-3.05], respectively). Impaired Timed-Get-Up-and-Go test was associated with 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality in metastatic patients (aSHR = 1.5 [1.06-2.12] and 1.38 [1.06-1.81], respectively). Obesity was negatively associated with 3-year cancer death in non-metastatic (aSHR = 0.53 [0.29-0.97]) and metastatic patients (aSHR = 0.71 [0.51-1.00]). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of older adults with cancer referred for pre-therapeutic GA die from cancer. Geriatric parameters are independently associated with cancer mortality and should be considered for prognosis assessment, decision-making and care.

Prevalence of Four Sarcopenia Criteria in Older Patients with Cancer, and Their Predictive Value for 6-Month Mortality: The NutriAgeCancer National Prospective Cohort Study.

Older cancer patients have an elevated risk of sarcopenia. The aim was to estimate the prevalence of four criteria for sarcopenia case finding, assessment, diagnosis, and severity determination: abnormal strength, assistance with walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls (SARC-F), low hand-grip strength (HGS), low arm circumference (AC, a muscle mass proxy), and low physical performance (PP). Sarcopenia (low HGS and AC) and severe sarcopenia (low HGS, AC, and PP) and their predictive values for 6-month mortality were estimated in the whole population and by metastatic status. We analyzed data from the NutriAgeCancer French nationwide study of cancer patients aged ≥70 referred for geriatric assessment before anti-cancer treatment. We performed Cox proportional hazards analysis for each criterion separately and all criteria combined. Overall, 781 patients from 41 geriatric oncology clinics were included (mean age: 83.1; females: 53%; main cancer types: digestive (29%) and breast (17%); metastases: 42%). The prevalence of abnormal SARC-F, low HGS, a low AC, low PP, sarcopenia, and severe sarcopenia were, respectively, 35.5%, 44.6%, 44.7%, 35.2%, 24.5%, and 11.7%. An abnormal SARC-F and/or low HGS, sarcopenia, and severe sarcopenia were associated with 6-month mortality in patients with metastases (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval]: 2.72 [1.34-5.49], 3.16 [1.48-6.75] and 6.41 [2.5-16.5], respectively). Sarcopenia was strongly predictive of 6-month mortality in patients with metastatic cancer.

A Two-Step Frailty Assessment Strategy in Older Patients With Solid Tumors: A Decision Curve Analysis.

PURPOSE: The intended clinical value of frailty screening is to identify unfit patients needing geriatric assessment (GA) and to prevent unnecessary GA in fit patients. These hypotheses rely on the sensitivity and specificity of screening tests, but they have not been verified. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of outpatients age ≥ 70 years with prostate, breast, colorectal, or lung cancer included in the ELCAPA cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02884375) between February 2007 and December 2019. The diagnostic accuracy of the G8 Geriatric Screening Tool (G8) and modified G8 scores for identifying unfit patients was determined on the basis of GA results. We used decision curve analysis to calculate the benefit of frailty screening for detecting unfit patients and avoiding unnecessary GA in fit patients across different threshold probabilities. RESULTS: We included 1,648 patients (median age, 81 years), and 1,428 (87%) were unfit. The sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 85% (95% CI, 84 to 87) and 59% (95% CI, 57 to 61) for G8, and 86% (95% CI, 84 to 87) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 63) for the modified G8 score. For decision curve analysis, the net benefit (NB) for identifying unfit patients were 0.72 for G8, 0.72 for the modified G8, and 0.82 for GA at a threshold probability of 0.25. At a threshold probability of 0.33, the NBs were 0.71, 0.72, and 0.80, respectively. At a threshold probability of 0.5, the NBs were 0.68, 0.69, and 0.73, respectively. No screening tool reduced unnecessary GA in fit patients at predefined threshold probabilities. CONCLUSION: Although frailty screening tests showed good diagnostic accuracy, screening showed no clinical benefits over the GA-for-all strategy. NB approaches, in addition to diagnostic accuracy, are necessary to assess the clinical value of tests.

Energy expenditure profiles and the risk of early limiting toxicity in older patients with cancer: The ELCAPA-25 prospective cohort survey.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Predicting the risk of early limiting toxicity (ELT) is major challenge for the clinician seeking an effective, safe treatment for older patients with cancer. The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) and CRASH (Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients) toxicity scores were designed to predict chemotherapy-related toxicity. Elevated resting energy expenditure (REE) may predispose to cachexia and increase ELT and mortality in older patients with cancer. The primary objective was to assess the association between elevated REE and ELT in older patients with cancer. The secondary objectives were to assess the discriminant ability of a predictive model including REE (relative to the CARG and CRASH scores) and the prognostic value of elevated REE. METHODS: We assessed patients aged 70 or over included in the prospective ELCAPA cohort between 2014 and 2018. The inclusion criteria were a solid tumour, a measurement of REE at baseline (mREE, by indirect calorimetry), and a geriatric assessment prior to cancer treatment in a teaching hospital (Paris, France). The mREE was compared with the predicted REE (pREE), as defined by the Harris-Benedict equation. Depending on the mREE/pREE ratio, study participants were classified as hypermetabolic, hypometabolic or normometabolic. The primary endpoint was 3-month ELT, defined as any unplanned hospitalization or any event leading to dose reduction, a treatment delay of more than 7 days, or treatment discontinuation within 3 months of initiation. The secondary endpoint was the 3-month mortality rate. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients were included. The median age was 80 [interquartile range: 76-84] years, 37% of the patients were female, 81.8% had metastatic disease, 67.6% received chemotherapy, 20.7% received hormone therapy, and 11.7% received targeted therapies. According to the mREE/pREE ratio, 85 patients (47%) were hypermetabolic, 63 (35%) were normometabolic, and 31 (18%) were hypometabolic. Sixty patients (33.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 26.7-40.9) experienced ELT. The discriminant ability (as assessed by the C-index) of a multivariate model including REE and adjustment factors was 0.82 [95%CI: 0.73-0.91]. In comparison, the discriminant ability of the CARG and CRASH models was 0.57 [0.45-0.68] and 0.51 [0.40-0.62], respectively. In our model, hypermetabolism was an independent risk factor for ELT (adjusted odds ratio = 2.44; 95%CI: 1.02-5.80). Other risk factors were the cancer type and stage, the treatment protocol, a clinical diagnosis of depression, the presence of grade 3 or 4 comorbidities, and the serum lactate dehydrogenase level. CONCLUSION: Hypermetabolism status is an independent predictor of ELT in older patients with cancer, relative to normometabolic status. Baseline REE measurement might improve the ELT risk assessment and decision-making process.

Geriatric impairments were directly and indirectly associated with mortality in older patients with cancer: a structural equation analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the direct and indirect effects between six geriatric domains and 6- and 12-month mortality in older cancer patients. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We included cancer patients aged ≥70 years from the Elderly Cancer Patients cohort, referred for geriatric assessment between 2007 and 2016. We used structural equation modelling to examine the interrelationships between six geriatric domains (function and mobility, nutrition, cognition, mood, comorbidities and polypharmacy, and social support) and the direct and indirect relationships between these domains, the cancer stage, site, and treatment on the one hand and mortality on the other. RESULTS: The analysis included 1,434 patients (mean age: 80 ± 5.6 years; women: 48%; main cancer sites: digestive tract [36.2%], urinary tract and prostate [26.6%], and breast [16.5%]; metastatic cancer: 48%). Direct relationships to 6- and 12-month mortality were identified for functional impairment (standardized coefficient [SC]: 0.37 [P < 0.001] and 0.32 [P < 0.001], respectively), poor nutritional status (SC: 0.11 [P = 0.005] and 0.14 [P = 0.001]), poor social support (SC = 0.07 [P = 0.08] and 0.09 [P = 0.02]), cancer site, stage, and treatment. The effects of comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and depression on mortality were mediated by functional and nutritional status. CONCLUSION: In older cancer patients, functional and nutritional impairments were the strongest direct prognostic geriatric factors for mortality.

Predicting Frailty and Geriatric Interventions in Older Cancer Patients: Performance of Two Screening Tools for Seven Frailty Definitions-ELCAPA Cohort.

Screening tools have been developed to identify patients warranting a complete geriatric assessment (GA). However, GA lacks standardization and does not capture important aspects of geriatric oncology practice. We measured and compared the diagnostic performance of screening tools G8 and modified G8 according to multiple clinically relevant reference standards. We included 1136 cancer patients ≥ 70 years old referred for GA (ELCAPA cohort; median age, 80 years; males, 52%; main locations: digestive (36.3%), breast (16%), and urinary tract (14.8%); metastases, 43.5%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) estimates were compared between both tools against: (1) the detection of ≥1 or (2) ≥2 GA impairments, (3) the prescription of ≥1 geriatric intervention and the identification of an unfit profile according to (4) a latent class typology, expert-based classifications from (5) Balducci, (6) the International Society of Geriatric Oncology task force (SIOG), or using (7) a GA frailty index according to the Rockwood accumulation of deficits principle. AUROC values were ≥0.80 for both tools under all tested definitions. They were statistically significantly higher for the modified G8 for six reference standards: ≥1 GA impairment (0.93 vs. 0.89), ≥2 GA impairments (0.90 vs. 0.87), ≥1 geriatric intervention (0.85 vs. 0.81), unfit according to Balducci (0.86 vs. 0.80) and SIOG classifications (0.88 vs. 0.83), and according to the GA frailty index (0.86 vs. 0.84). Our findings demonstrate the robustness of both screening tools against different reference standards, with evidence of better diagnostic performance of the modified G8.

Prevalence and prognostic impact of cachexia among older patients with cancer: a nationwide cross-sectional survey (NutriAgeCancer).

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.

Adherence to Treatment Guidelines and Associated Survival in Older Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study.

The guidelines on prostate cancer treatment in older men recommend evaluating the patient's underlying health status before treatment selection. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of a guideline-discordant treatment (GDT), identify factors associated with GDT, and assess the relationship between GDT and overall survival. We studied patients with prostate cancer aged 70 or older included in the ELCAPA cohort between 2010 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression assessed GDT-associated factors. The restricted mean survival time (RMST) assessed the 24- and 36-month OS using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting of propensity scores. We included 356 patients (median age: 81 years), and 164 (46%) received a GDT (95% confidence interval (CI) = (41-51%)). Patients with metastases were less likely to receive a GDT (adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) = 0.34 (0.17-0.69); p = 0.003). After weighting, the RMST at 24 months was shorter in the GDT group (13.9 months, vs. 17 months for compliant treatments; difference (95% CI): -3.1 months (-5.3, -1.0); p = 0.004). RMST at 36 months was 18.5 months, vs. 21.8 months (difference: -3.3 months (-6.7, 0.0); p = 0.053). GDT is common in older patients with prostate cancer and especially those with non-metastatic disease. GDT was associated with worse survival, independently of health status and tumour characteristics.

The obesity paradox for mid- and long-term mortality in older cancer patients: a prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are associated with adverse health outcomes. However, substantial literature suggests that they are associated with longer survival among older people. This "obesity paradox" remains controversial. In the context of cancer, the association between overweight/obesity and mortality is complicated by concomitant weight loss (WL). Sex differences in the relation between BMI (in kg/m2) and survival have also been observed. OBJECTIVES: We studied whether a high BMI was associated with better survival, and whether the association differed by sex, in older patients with cancer. METHODS: We studied patients aged ≥70 y from the ELCAPA (Elderly Cancer Patients) prospective open cohort (2007-2016; 10 geriatric oncology clinics, Greater Paris urban area). The endpoints were 12- and 60-mo mortality. We created a variable combining BMI at cancer diagnosis and WL in the previous 6 mo, and considered 4 BMI categories-underweight (BMI < 22.5), normal weight (BMI = 22.5-24.9), overweight (BMI = 25-29.9), and obesity (BMI ≥ 30)-and 3 WL categories-<5% (minimal), 5% to <10% (moderate), and ≥10% (severe). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses were conducted in men and women. RESULTS: A total of 2071 patients were included (mean age: 81 y; women: 48%; underweight: 30%; normal weight: 23%; overweight: 33%; obesity: 14%; predominant cancer sites: colorectal (18%) and breast (16%); patients with metastases: 49%). By multivariate analysis, obese women with WL < 5% had a lower 60-mo mortality risk than normal-weight women with WL < 5% (adjusted HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.86; P = 0.012). Overweight/obese women with WL ≥ 5% did not have a lower mortality risk than normal-weight women with WL < 5%. Overweight and obese men did not have a lower mortality risk, irrespective of WL. CONCLUSIONS: By taking account of prediagnosis WL, only older obese women with cancer with minimal WL had a lower mortality risk than their counterparts with normal weight.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02884375.

Frailty Parameters, Morbidity and Mortality in Older Adults with Cancer: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach Based on the Fried Phenotype.

BACKGROUND: to distinguish direct and indirect pathways to frailty phenotype, and quantify associations between two frailty components (i.e., sarcopenia and cachexia) regarding mortality and morbidity in older adults with cancer. METHODS: all consecutive older outpatients with cancer were included in a prospective two-centre cohort study between 2013 and 2017 and had geriatric assessment. We used the frailty phenotype. Sarcopenia and cachexia were built as latent variables by including observed variables related to physical performances and related to nutrition and inflammation respectively. Structural equation modelling was used to distinguish between direct and indirect effects of the frailty parameters on the risk of death (Model 1) and the risk of morbidity (defined by unplanned hospitalization and/or disability and/or a fall; Model 2). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI) were used to assess the model fit. RESULTS: 603 older outpatients were included (mean age: 81.2 ± 6.1; women: 54%; frailty phenotype: 58%). The 6-month mortality and morbidity rates were 18% and 64%, respectively. The fit was good for both models (RMSEA and CFI = 0.029 [0.017-0.039] and 0.99 for Model 1, and 0.028 [0.017-0.039] and 0.99 for Model 2, respectively). Sarcopenia and cachexia were both directly and significantly associated with 6-month mortality (ßsarcopenia = 0.18, p = 0.01; ßcachexia = 0.52, p < 0.0001) and morbidity (ßsarcopenia = 0.37, p < 0.0001; ßcachexia = 0.19, p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: sarcopenia and cachexia had a direct pathway with 6-month mortality and morbidity in older cancer patients.

Depressive Symptom Profiles and Survival in Older Patients with Cancer: Latent Class Analysis of the ELCAPA Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The expression of depressive symptoms in older people with cancer is heterogeneous because of specific features of age or cancer comorbidity. We aimed to identify depressive symptom profiles in this population and describe the associated features including survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients ≥70 years who were referred to geriatric oncology clinics were prospectively included in the ELCAPA study. In this subanalysis, depressive symptoms were used as indicators in a latent class analysis. Multinomial multivariable logistic regression and Cox models examined the association of each class with baseline characteristics and mortality. RESULTS: For the 847 complete-case patients included (median age, 79 years; interquartile range, 76-84; women, 47.9%), we identified five depressive symptom classes: "no depression/somatic only" (38.8%), "no depression/pauci-symptomatic" (26.4%), "severe depression" (20%), "mild depression" (11.8%), and "demoralization" (3%). Compared with the no depression/pauci-symptomatic class, the no depression/somatic only and severe depression classes were characterized by more frequent comorbidities with poorer functional status and higher levels of inflammation. "Severe" and "mild" depression classes also featured poorer nutritional status, more medications, and more frequent falls. Severe depression was associated with poor social support, inpatient status, and increased risk of mortality at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.62, 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.48) and 3 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10). CONCLUSION: A data-driven approach based on depressive symptoms identified five different depressive symptom profiles, including demoralization, in older patients with cancer. Severe depression was independently and substantially associated with poor survival. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Older patients with cancer present with distinct profiles of depressive symptomatology, including different severity levels of depression and the demoralization syndrome. Clinicians should use a systematic assessment of depressive symptoms to adequately highlight these distinct profiles. Geriatric and oncological features are differently associated with these profiles. For instance, severe depression was associated with more frequent comorbidities with poorer functional, poor nutritional status, polypharmacy, frequent falls, inpatient status and poor social support. Also, severe depression was independently and substantially associated with poor survival so that the identification and management of depression should be considered a high priority in this population.

Preferences for surrogate designation and decision-making process in older versus younger adults with cancer: A comparative cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the preferences of older (≥70 years old) versus younger (<70 years old) cancer patients regarding surrogate designation and decision making. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey. Patient characteristics and information about surrogacy and involvement in decision making were collected. Associations between patient characteristics and preferences were examined. RESULTS: The study included 130 patients aged ≥70 years (mean age 80 years) and 102 patients aged <70 years (mean age 55) and. Factors independently associated with surrogate knowledge (66%): younger age, more children living nearby, high income; factors associated with having already designated a surrogate (62%): younger age, decreased number of daily medications; factors associated with designating a surrogate after questionnaire administration (40%): low education, metastasis. Patients requiring an informed consent for any intervention was associated with older age (adjusted OR [aOR]per year = 1.04[95% confidence interval 1.00-1.08]), not living alone (aOR = 2.52[1.00-6.36]), and having children (aOR = 4.49[1.13-17.81]). CONCLUSION: All cancer patients, wanted to be fully informed and 72% wanted to be involved in medical decisions. Preferences for decision control vary between age groups, depending on family members' presence and living alone. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Sharing complete and clear information should be an important key in the process of cancer patients' care, regardless of patient age.

Diagnostic performance of gait speed, G8 and G8 modified indices to screen for vulnerability in older cancer patients: the prospective PF-EC cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performance of tools used to screen vulnerability in older cancer patients varies widely. We assessed the diagnostic performance of gait speed (GS) for assessing vulnerability in such patients. METHODS: All consecutive outpatients 65 years and older were referred for geriatric oncology assessment (GA) before a therapeutic decision between November 2013 and April 2016 in a bicentric observational and prospective cohort study. Vulnerability was defined as impaired score on at least one of the 6 domains of the GA. GS and the G8 index and G8 modified index were assessed at the first geriatric oncology visit during the GA. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and positive and negative likelihood ratio were estimated. The accuracy of the three tools was analysed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Among 269 included patients (mean [SD] age, 81.3 years [5.9]; 55% women, 94.4% solid tumors; 39.4% with metastasis), 252 (93.7%) had impaired GA. With the GS threshold of 1 m/s, sensitivity was 79.4% (95% CI, 73.8-84.2), specificity 64.7% (38.3-85.8), and AUC 82.0 (74.0-90.0). The corresponding values for the G8 index were 90.1% (85.7-93.5), 35.3% (14.2-61.7), and 79.0 (70.0-88.0) and G8 modified index were 89.3% (84.8-92.8), 64.7% (38.3-85.8), and 84.0 (74.0-92.0). CONCLUSIONS: GS < 1 m/s with a single measure could be used as a new screening tool for detecting vulnerability in older cancer outpatients. This first external validation of the G8 modified index was very good.

Prognostic value of the G8 and modified-G8 screening tools for multidimensional health problems in older patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The G8 screening tool has been developed to identify older cancer patients requiring a geriatric assessment for tailoring therapy. Little is known about its prognostic value, particularly by tumour site. An optimised version has been recently developed, but no prognostic information is available. We compared the prognostic value of both instruments overall and by tumour site. METHODS: Data were from a prospective cohort of cancer patients ≥70 years old referred to 1 of 6 French geriatric oncology clinics between 2007 and 2014 (n = 1333). Endpoints were overall 1- and 3-year survival. Cox proportional-hazards models were built to assess the predictive value of abnormal G8 and modified-G8 scores, based on published cut-offs or by classes of increasing risk. Sensitivity analyses involved adjusting for age, gender, treatment, metastasis, and tumour site (digestive, breast, urinary tract, prostate, other solid cancers, and haematological malignancies) and stratifying by tumour site and metastatic status. RESULTS: Abnormal scores were independently associated with overall 1-year survival: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 4.3[G8]/4.9[modified-G8] and 3-year survival: aHR = 2.9/2.6; all p <0.0001. Associations persisted after stratifying by metastatic status and in most cancer sites (exceptions: colorectal (G8) and upper digestive cancer (both tools) [1-year analysis]; digestive cancers (both tools) [3-year analysis]). For both tools, classes of increasing risk showed a graded relationship with mortality (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results identified both abnormal G8 and modified-G8 scores as strong and consistent predictors of overall survival, regardless of metastatic status or tumour site. These findings strengthen the clinical utility of these instruments in the geriatric oncology setting.

Optimizing the G8 Screening Tool for Older Patients With Cancer: Diagnostic Performance and Validation of a Six-Item Version.

BACKGROUND: A multidimensional geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended in older cancer patients to inventory health problems and tailor treatment decisions accordingly but requires considerable time and human resources. The G8 is among the most sensitive screening tools for selecting patients warranting a full GA but has limited specificity. We sought to develop and validate an optimized version of the G8. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years referred to geriatricians for GA (2007-2012: n = 729 [training set]; 2012-2014: n = 414 [validation set]). Abnormal GA was defined as at least one impaired domain across seven validated tests. Multiple correspondence analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and bootstrapped internal validation were performed sequentially. RESULTS: The final model included six independent predictors for abnormal GA: weight loss, cognition/mood, performance status, self-rated health status, polypharmacy (≥ 6 medications per day), and history of heart failure/coronary heart disease. For the original G8, sensitivity was 87.2% (95% confidence interval, 84.3-89.7), specificity 57.7% (47.3-67.7), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 86.5% (83.5-89.6). The modified G8 had corresponding values of 89.2% (86.5-91.5), 79.0% (69.4-86.6), and 91.6% (89.3; 93.9), with higher AUROC values for all tumor sites and stable properties on the validation set. CONCLUSION: A modified G8 screening tool exhibited better diagnostic performance with greater uniformity across cancer sites and required only six items. If these features are confirmed in other settings, the modified tool may facilitate selection for a full GA in older patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Several screening tools have been developed to identify older patients with cancer likely to benefit from a complete geriatric assessment, but none combines appropriate sensitivity and specificity. Based on a large prospective cohort study, an optimized G8 tool was developed, combining a systematic statistical approach with expert judgment to ensure optimal discriminative power and clinical relevance. The improved screening tool achieves high sensitivity, high specificity, better homogeneity across cancer types, and greater parsimony with only six items needed, facilitating selection for a full geriatric assessment.