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.

Diagnostic Performance of the 4-Item Geriatric Depression Scale for Depression Screening in Older Patients with Cancer: The ELCAPA Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In older patients with cancer, depression is difficult to assess because of its heterogeneous clinical expression. The 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-4) is quick and easy to administer but has not been validated in this population. The present study was designed to test the diagnostic performance of the GDS-4 in a French cohort of older patients with cancer before treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our cross-sectional analysis of data from the Elderly Cancer Patient cohort covered all patients with cancer aged ≥70 years and referred for geriatric assessment at two centers in France between 2007 and 2018. The GDS-4's psychometric properties were evaluated against three different measures of depression: the geriatrician's clinical diagnosis (based on a semistructured interview), the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and a cluster analysis. The scale's sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated. RESULTS: In a sample of 2,293 patients (median age, 81 years; women, 46%), the GDS-4's sensitivity and specificity for detecting physician-diagnosed depression were, respectively, 90% and 89%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 8.2 and 0.11, and the AUROC was 92%. When considering the subset of patients with data on all measures of depression, the sensitivity and specificity values were, respectively, ≥90% and ≥72%, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were, respectively, ≥3.4 and ≤ 0.11, and the AUROC was ≥91%. CONCLUSION: The GDS-4 appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Considering the overlap between symptoms of cancer and symptoms of depression, depression is particularly difficult to assess in older geriatric oncology and is associated with poor outcomes; there is a need for a routine psychological screening. Self-report instruments like the 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer. Asking four questions might enable physicians to screen older patients with cancer for depression and then guide them toward further clinical evaluation and appropriate care if required.

Potential drug-drug interactions with abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients: a prevalence study in France.

PURPOSE: Abiraterone acetate combined with prednisone improves survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. This oral anticancer agent may result in drug-drug interactions (DDI). We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of DDI with abiraterone and the possible determinants for the occurrence of these DDI. METHODS: We performed a single centre retrospective review from electronic medical records of mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone from 2011 to 2015. Potential DDI with abiraterone were identified using Micromedex and were categorized by a 4-point scale severity. RESULTS: Seventy-two out of ninety-five mCRPC pts (median age: 77 years [68-82]) had comorbidities. The median number of drugs used per patient was 7 [5-9]. 66 potential DDI with abiraterone were detected in 49 patients (52%): 39 and 61% were classified as major and moderate DDI, respectively. In the univariate analysis, pain (p < 0.0001), hypo-albuminemia (p = 0.032), and higher ECOG performance status (PS) (p = 0.013) were significantly associated with a higher risk of DDI with abiraterone. Pain (p < 0.0001) and PS (p = 0.018) remained significant in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is an issue among mCRPC patients. In our study, half of the patients have potential DDI with abiraterone. Patients with pain and poor PS are at higher risk of DDI with abiraterone. A medication review by a pharmacist is of crucial importance to prevent DDI with abiraterone.