RESUMO
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a disease of the elderly, but chronological age does not accurately discriminate frailty status at the inter-individual level. Frailty describes a person's overall resilience. Since CLL is a stressful situation, it is relevant to assess the patient´s degree of frailty, especially before starting antineoplastic treatment. We are in the era of targeted therapies, which have helped to control the disease more effectively and avoid the toxicity of chemo (immuno) therapy. However, these drugs are not free of side effects and other aspects arise that should not be neglected, such as interactions, previous comorbidities, or adherence to treatment, since most of these medications are taken continuously. The challenge we face is to balance the risk of toxicity and efficacy in a personalized way and without forgetting that the most frequent cause of death in CLL is related to the disease. For this purpose, comprehensive geriatric assessment (GA) provides us with the opportunity to evaluate multiple domains that may affect tolerance to treatment and that could be improved with appropriate interventions. In this review, we will analyze the state of the art of GA in CLL through the five Ws.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The discovery of new biologic variables with high prognostic effect has been accompanied by the emergence of different prognostic indexes (PIs) to assess the time to first treatment in patients with early-stage (Binet A) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The present study compared the prognostic value of 5 PIs: CLL international prognostic index (CLL-IPI), Barcelona-Brno, international prognostic score-A (IPS-A), CLL-01, and a tailored approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We applied the 5 PIs to a cohort of 428 unselected patients with Binet A CLL from a multicenter Spanish database with clinical and biologic information available. The predictive value of the scores was assessed using Harrell's concordance index (C index) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: We found a significant association between time to first treatment and risk subgroups for all 5 PIs used. The most accurate PI was the IPS-A (C-index, 0.72; AUC, 0.76), closely followed by CLL-01 (C-index, 0.69; AUC, 0.70), CLL-IPI (C-index, 0.69; AUC, 0.69), Barcelona-Brno (C-index, 0.67; AUC, 0.69), and the tailored approach (C-index, 0.61 and 0.58; AUC, 0.58 and 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between the PIs was low (44%), suggesting that although all these PIs improve clinical staging and help physicians in routine clinical practice, it will be necessary to harmonize larger cohorts of patients to define the best PI for treatment decision-making in the real world.
