Gait Speed vs. VES-13: A Pilot Study Comparing Screening Tools to Determine the Need for a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Senior Women with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Patients aged 70 years and older may be suboptimally treated with cancer therapy because of the lack of clinical trial data in this population. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment can be time consuming, and access to geriatricians is limited. This study aims to determine whether gait speed (GS) analysis is equivalent to the widely accepted Vulnerable Elders Survey 13 (VES-13) in identifying vulnerable or frail patients in need of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. METHODS: A pilot prospective cohort study was carried out at a tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada, in a radiation oncology breast follow-up clinic. GS analysis and VES-13 were completed by each patient at the same clinic visit. GS of <1 meter/second (m/s) and VES-13 score ≥3 were considered abnormal. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Kappa characteristic were calculated for GS compared with VES-13. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Twenty-nine participants aged 70 years and older with any stage of breast cancer were included. The GS was 67% sensitive and 95% specific for abnormal VES-13 scores. The GS had an 86% positive predictive value and 86% negative predictive value for abnormal scores on VES-13. Overall, the GS showed a substantial strength of agreement with the VES-13 (kappa 0.66, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The GS analysis compared very well with VES-13 scores, and this may be a reasonable alternative to VES-13 screening. This pilot data warrant further study in a larger group of patients.

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of Primary Prophylaxis of Febrile Neutropenia During Adjuvant Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used breast cancer adjuvant regimen. We sought to compare the rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) between patients receiving no primary prophylaxis (PP) and those receiving PP with either granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) or antibiotics. We also analyzed cost-effectiveness of TC with and without either G-CSF or antibiotics. Charts were reviewed of all 340 patients who received adjuvant TC between January 2008 and December 2012 at two major cancer centers. Rates of FN in the three groups - no PP, PP with G-CSF and PP with antibiotics were compared. A Markov model was constructed comparing cost-effectiveness of PP with G-CSF, PP with antibiotics, and secondary prophylaxis (SP) with G-CSF after an episode of FN in a previous cycle. Costs were based on actual resource utilization and supplemented by the published literature, adjusted to 2012 Canadian dollars. Of the 73 (21%) patients who did not receive any PP, 23 (32%) of patients developed FN. Of the 192 (57%) patients receiving PP with G-CSF alone, only two (1%; p < 0.0001) developed FN; and of the 53 (16%) receiving PP with antibiotics alone, six (11%; p < 0.01) developed FN. From a cost-standpoint, PP with G-CSF was less cost-effective than PP with antibiotics. The rate of FN with TC chemotherapy exceeds 30%, and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend PP with G-CSF in this situation. PP with antibiotics is more cost-effective, and is a reasonable option in resource-limited settings or for patients who decline or do not tolerate G-CSF.

Time and labor costs associated with administration of intravenous bisphosphonates for breast or prostate cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: a time and motion study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate, using a time and motion method, the time and labor costs associated with the administration of zoledronic acid and pamidronate in cancer patients with metastatic bone diseases. METHODS: During clinic visits for participating patients receiving intravenous zoledronic acid or pamidronate, all times and activities associated with the administration of bisphosphonates were recorded by a trained observer using a stopwatch and data recording forms. The total time associated with the administration of bisphosphonates was estimated and converted to labor costs by applying corresponding health care professional hourly wage rates plus the fringe-benefit rate. The costs were presented in 2011 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 37 patients from 2 hospital outpatient oncology clinics in Ontario and Quebec participated in the study. Nineteen patients were diagnosed with breast cancer and 18 with prostate cancer. The average patient age was 66 years, and patients had been diagnosed with cancer and metastatic bone disease for 8 years and 3 years, respectively. The times and costs associated with the administration of bisphosphonates for the 28 patients who did not receive concurrent chemotherapy during the scheduled clinic visits are also reported. The mean infusion time for patients receiving zoledronic acid was 20.6 minutes. With the use of ambulatory infusion devices, the mean infusion time of pamidronate was 23 minutes (limited to observations of patients who were seated during administration). In contrast, the mean infusion time using regular infusion devices was 162 minutes. The mean labor cost for administering zoledronic acid was $20. The mean labor cost for administering pamidronate was $10 using ambulatory infusion devices and $68 using regular infusion devices. CONCLUSION: The time burden to cancer patients with metastatic bone disease who receive intravenous bisphosphonates and the costs to the health care system are substantial, especially when regular infusion devices are used.