Prediction of moderate and severe toxicities of chemotherapy in older patients with cancer: a propensity weighted analysis of ELCAPA cohort.

BACKGROUND: Currently available predictive models for chemotherapy-related toxicity are not sufficiently discriminative in older patients with cancer and do not consider moderate toxicities. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with moderate and severe chemotherapy toxicities in older patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged 70+ recruited in the prospective ELCAPA cohort were analyzed. A total of 837 patients with data on toxicities had received chemotherapy without other systemic treatment and were included between 2015 and 2022. To adjust for any imbalances in the distribution of covariates between patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy vs combination chemotherapy, we applied overlap weighting (a propensity-score-based technique). We used multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) age was 81 (77-84). Forty-one percent experienced moderate toxicity, and 33% experienced severe toxicity. Hematologic toxicities accounted for 53% of severe toxicities and 66% of moderate toxicities. Age <80 years, cancer type, metastatic status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) >1, no cognitive impairment were associated with combination chemotherapy decision. In a univariate analysis with overlap weighting, no factors were associated with moderate toxicity. Hemoglobin < 0 g/dL and a CIRS-G score >12 were associated with severe toxicity. In a multivariate analysis, only hemoglobin < 10 g/dL was independently associated with severe toxicity, adjusted OR 2.96 (95% CI, 1.20-7.29). CONCLUSION: By addressing indication bias for combination chemotherapy decision, only anemia and not cancer type, combination chemotherapy was predicting for severe chemotherapy-related toxicity in older patients with cancer. We did not find any predictors of moderate chemotherapy-related toxicity.

External Validity of Two Scores for Predicting the Risk of Chemotherapy Toxicity Among Older Patients With Solid Tumors: Results From the ELCAPA Prospective Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Severe chemotherapy-related toxicities are frequent among older patients. The Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients (CRASH) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Study (CARG) score were both developed to predict these events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the scores' predictive performance in a prospective cohort, which included patients aged 70 years and older referred for a geriatric assessment prior to chemotherapy for a solid tumor. The main endpoints were grades 3/4/5 toxicities for the CARG score and grades 4/5 hematologic toxicities and grades 3/4/5 non-hematologic toxicities for the CRASH score. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients were included, of which 150 (61%) and 126 (51%) experienced at least one severe adverse event as defined respectively in CARG and CRASH studies. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly greater in the intermediate and high-risk CARG groups than in the low-risk group (odds ratio (OR) [95% CI] = 0.3 [0.1-1.4] (P = .1) and 0.4 [0.1-1.7], respectively). The area under curve (AUC) was 0.55. Similarly, the incidence of severe toxicities was no greater in the intermediate-low, intermediate-high, and high-risk CRASH groups than in the low-risk CRASH group (OR [95%CI] = 1 [0.3-3.6], 1 [0.3-3.4], and 1.5 [0.3-8.1], respectively). The AUC was 0.52. The type of cancer, performance status, comorbidities, body mass index, and MAX2 index were independently associated with grades 3/4/5 toxicities. CONCLUSION: In an external cohort of older patients referred for a pretherapeutic GA, the CARG and CRASH scores were poor predictors of the risk of chemotherapy severe toxicities.

[Clinical trials and elderly patients with cancer, the Geriatric Core Dataset (G-Code) tool]. / Essais cliniques et personnes âgées cancéreuses, l'outil Geriatric Core Dataset (G-Code).

Faced with the lack of evidence-based medicine concerning the efficacy and tolerance of cancer treatments in the extremely heterogeneous elderly population, and with no standardised geriatric evaluation in geriatric oncology clinical trials, the intergroup Dialog set itself the objective of establishing a minimal standardised geriatric evaluation for clinical trials. The evaluation must be simple, short and effective. It must comprise validated and reproducible measurement tools. The Geriatric Core Dataset, made up of seven items, has been formalised and validated by national and international experts.

Risk Factors for Mortality and Morbidity in Elderly Patients Presenting with Digestive Surgical Emergencies.

BACKGROUND: Emergency digestive surgery is being increasingly performed in elderly patients. The aim of the present study was to identify the predictors of mortality and morbidity following emergency digestive surgery in patients aged 80 years and older. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients aged ≥65 years operated for a digestive surgical emergency between January 2011 and December 2013. Two groups were compared: group A (aged 65-79 years) and group B (aged ≥80 years). RESULTS: The study population included 185 patients: 76 patients in group A and 109 in group B. The mean age was 79.9 years (65-104 years). The overall 90-day mortality rate was 23.2 and 31.9% at 1 year, which was similar between groups. The overall morbidity was 28.6%. No differences were noted between the two groups in overall, minor (Dindo I-II) or major (Dindo III-IV) morbidity rates. Multivariate analysis identified pulmonary disease (odds ratio, OR = 6.43, p = 0.02), bowel ischemia (OR = 11.41, p = 0.01), postoperative ICU stay (OR = 7.37, p < 0.0001) and the occurrence of postoperative complications (OR = 2.66, p = 0.03) as predictors of 90-day mortality. Predictors of in-hospital morbidity were preoperative hemoglobin <12 g/dL (OR = 2.49, p = 0.02) and postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay (OR = 6.69, p < 0.0001). An age ≥80 year was not associated with mortality or morbidity in this study. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to perform abdominal surgery in the emergency setting should be based on physiological status, which accounts for a patient's comorbidities and health status, rather than on chronological age per se.

Preferences about information and decision-making among older patients with and without cancer.

Background: information of older patients with cancer is crucial to ensure optimal care. Objectives: to compare older patients with and without cancer regarding their preferences about medical information, decision-making and surrogate designation. Design: an intention-to-act questionnaire was completed by patients ≥70 y enroled in the ELderly CAncer PAtients cohort between January and June 2013 and by patients in the same age group enroled in a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2005 in acute geriatric wards. Setting: Henri-Mondor Teaching Hospital in the Paris conurbation, France. Results: the group with cancer had 133 patients [mean age, 79.6 ± 6.5 y; 54.9% women]. The main tumour sites were colorectal [24.1%], breast [23.3%] and prostate [15.8%]; 34.8% had metastases. All these patients wanted full information, 74.2% wanted to participate in decisions about their care, 87.2% would designate a family member to serve as a surrogate in life-threatening situations and 15% had already designated a surrogate. Compared to patients without cancer, those with cancer more often wanted to receive information in a life-threatening situation [93.6% versus 79.2%; P < 0.001]. Factors independently associated with patients wanting their informed consent to be obtained for all interventions were having children [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.24; 3.66; P = 0.006], higher Mini Mental State Examination score [aORper point, 1.09; 1.02; 1.17], younger age in the group without cancer [aOR>82 y vs. ≤82 y, 0.50; 0.29-0.88] and being cancer-free [≤82 y, aOR, 0.30; 0.14-0.63; >82 y, aOR, 0.41; 0.17-0.97]. Conclusion: older patients with cancer expressed a strong preference for receiving information and participating in decisions about their care.

Geriatric assessment findings independently associated with clinical depression in 1092 older patients with cancer: the ELCAPA Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess the prevalence and associated factors of clinical depression in older patients with cancer. METHODS: We studied a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years and referred to geriatric oncology clinics between 2007 and 2012. A multidimensional geriatric assessment was performed before choosing the cancer-treatment strategy. Clinical depression was diagnosed by senior geriatricians by a semi-structured interview. It encompassed criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition) and of the International Classification of Diseases (10th edition). Multivariate logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: Of 1121 consecutive patients, 1092 had available data (mean age, 80.4 years; women, 48.8%; metastases, 51.3%; cancer location: colorectal 21.1%, breast 16.8%, kidney, bladder or urinary tract 14.0%, and prostate 11.4%). The overall prevalence of clinical depression was 28.4% (95% confidence interval, 25.7-31.2). Factors independently associated with clinical depression by multivariate analysis adjusting for all following factors plus gender, and metastasis were impaired mobility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.35; 1.59-3.46), impaired functional status defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥ 2 (aOR, 2.39; 1.66-3.43) or as activities of daily living < 6 (aOR, 2.43; 1.73-3.41), inpatient status (aOR, 1.68; 1.20-2.37), inadequate social support (aOR, 1.66; 1.16-2.37), cognitive impairment (aOR, 1.76; 1.24-2.49), polypharmacy defined as five or more non-antidepressant drugs (aOR, 1.65; 1.14-2.38), multimorbidity (aOR additional CIRS-G point , 1.08; 1.04-1.12), and cancer-related pain (aOR, 1.76; 1.26-2.46). CONCLUSION: In older patients with as-yet untreated cancer at various sites and stages, clinical depression was highly prevalent. Clinical depression was independently associated with several geriatric assessment findings (impaired mobility and function, inadequate social support, cognitive impairment, polypharmacy, and multimorbidity) independently from gender, tumor site, and metastatic status.

Assessment of solid cancer treatment feasibility in older patients: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To assess solid cancer treatment feasibility in older patients. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, 385 consecutive elderly patients (mean age: 78.9 ± 5.4 years; 47.8% males) with solid malignancies referred to two geriatric oncology clinics were included prospectively. We recorded feasibility of first-line chemotherapy (planned number of cycles in patients without metastases and three to six cycles depending on tumor site in patients with metastases), surgery (patient alive 30 days after successfully performed planned surgical procedure), radiotherapy (planned dose delivered), and hormonal therapy (planned drug dose given), and we recorded overall 1-year survival. RESULTS: Main tumor sites were colorectal (28.6%), breast (23.1%), and prostate (10.9%), and 47% of patients had metastases. Planned cancer treatment was feasible in 65.7% of patients with metastases; this proportion was 59.0% for chemotherapy, 82.6% for surgery, 100% for radiotherapy, and 85.2% for hormonal therapy. In the group without metastases, feasibility proportions were 86.8% overall, 72.4% for chemotherapy, 95.7% for surgery, 96.4% for radiotherapy, and 97.9% for hormonal therapy. Factors independently associated with chemotherapy feasibility were good functional status defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status <2 (p < .0001) or activities of daily living >5 (p = .01), normal mobility defined as no difficulty walking (p = .01) or no fall risk (p = .007), and higher creatinine clearance (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Feasibility rates were considerably lower for chemotherapy than for surgery, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. Therefore, utilization of limited geriatric oncology resources may be optimized by preferential referral of elderly cancer patients initially considered for chemotherapy to geriatric oncology clinics.

Breast radiotherapy (RT) using tangential fields (TgF): a prospective evaluation of the dose distribution in the sentinel lymph node (SLN) area as determined intraoperatively by clip placement.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have established that patients with limited involvement of sentinel lymph node (SLN) do not require axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The similar outcome in patients with ≤2 positive SLN with or without additional ALND is attributed, in part, to tangential fields (TgF) RT. We evaluated the dose distribution in the SLN biopsy area (SLNBa) as determined intraoperatively by clips placement for radiotherapy (RT) optimization. METHODS: This prospective study included 25 patients who had breast conservation. Titanium clips were used intraoperatively to mark the SLNBa. All patients had 3D-conformal RT using standard (STgF) or high tangential fields (HTgF). Axillary levels, SLNBa, and organs at risk were contoured on a CT scan. Dose distribution and overlap between TgF and target volumes were analyzed. RESULTS: The average doses delivered to axilla levels I-III and SLNBa were 25, 5, 2, and 33 Gy, respectively. The average dose delivered to SLNBa was higher using HTgF with better coverage of the axilla. Only 12 of 25 patients (48 %) had their SLNBa completely covered by the TgF. There was no impact of TgF size on ipsilateral lung dose. The mean heart dose delivered using STgF was lower than HTgF. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of SLNB, axilla and SNLBa RT technique has to be standardized to deliver adequate dose. We recommend the use of HTgF or direct axillary RT techniques (such as in AMAROS trial) in patients with metastases in SLN without ALND completion, when only TgF are expected to cure potential residual disease in the axilla.

Impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment on survival, function, and nutritional status in elderly patients with head and neck cancer: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (EGeSOR).

BACKGROUND: Survival is poorer in elderly patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas [HNSCCs] than in younger patients. Possible explanations include a contribution of co-morbidities to mortality, frequent refusal of standard therapy, and the use of suboptimal treatments due to concern about toxicities. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment [CGA] is a multidimensional assessment of general health that can help to customise treatment and follow-up plans. The CGA has been proven effective in several health settings but has not been evaluated in randomised studies of patients with cancer. Our aim here was to assess the impact of the CGA on overall survival, function, and nutritional status of elderly patients with HNSCC. METHODS/DESIGN: EGeSOR is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial in patients aged 70 years or older and receiving standard care for HNSCC. The intervention includes four components: the CGA conducted by a geriatrician before cancer treatment, participation of the same geriatrician in cancer treatment selection, a standardised geriatric therapeutic intervention designed by the same geriatrician; and geriatric follow-up for 24 months. The primary endpoint, assessed after 6 months, is a composite criterion including death, functional impairment [Activities of Daily Living score decrease ≥ 2], and weight loss ≥ 10%. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, unscheduled admissions, quality of life, treatment toxicities, costs, and completion of the planned cancer treatment. A centralised online system is used to perform 1:1 randomisation with a minimisation algorithm for centre, age, T and N stages, and tumour site [oral, oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, or laryngeal]. The estimated sample size is 704 patients, who are being recruited by 14 centres in 9 French cities. DISCUSSION: EGeSOR is the first randomised trial of the CGA in elderly cancer patients. We expect the CGA to have direct clinical benefits on the management of elderly patients with HNSCC. If this expectation is fulfilled, the trial may lead to modifications of the management model for elderly patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: NCT02025062.

[Kidney and bladder cancers in the elderly]. / Cancer du rein et de la vessie chez la personne âgée.

Kidney and bladder cancers are common in the elderly. Treatments used in younger patients may be considered for the latter, subject to an individual estimation of the/risk-benefit ratio that takes into consideration the geriatric evaluation parameters. Surgery is the only curative treatment for both cancers. Supportive care should be integrated early in comprehensive care to preserve the quality of life of elderly patients with these cancers.

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.

Prognostic impact of neurocognitive disorders in older patients with cancer: the ELCAPA prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic value of neurocognitive disorder (NCD) for 12 month-overall mortality in patients aged 70 or more with a solid cancer. DESIGN: prospective, observational, multicenter cohort. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data from the ELCAPA longitudinal multicenter observational cohort of patients aged 70 or over, referred for a geriatric assessment (GA) before a new cancer treatment modality between January 31st, 2007, and December 29th, 2017. We defined the baseline NCD in four classes: no NCD, mild NCD, moderate NCD, and major NCD, based on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, memory complaint, and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) score. STATISTICAL METHODS: We compared the baseline characteristics of patients according to NCD classes, globally and by pairs (with Bonferroni' correction). Prognosis value of NCD classes were analysed by using univariable and then multivariable 12 month survival analysis with age as time-variable and with and without adjustement for the treatment strategy (curative, palliative or exclusive supportive care). RESULTS: 2784 patients with solid-cancer were included, with a median [interquartile range] age of 82 [78;86]. 36% of the patients were free of NCD, 34% had a mild NCD, 17% had a moderate NCD, and 13% had a major NCD. We identified the following independent prognostic factors for 12 month-overall mortality: NCD (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for a major NCD = 1.54 [1.19-1.98] (p < 0.001), type of cancer, metastatic status, inpatient consultation, poor general health (assessed as the level of fatigue and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status [ECOG-PS]), greater weight loss, palliative treatment, and exclusive supportive care. Additional adjustment for the treatment strategy did not greatly change the strength of the association of a major NCD with 12 month-overall mortality (HR [95%CI] = 1.78 [1.39-2.29] (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the presence of a major NCD has direct prognostic value (independently of other geriatric factors, the type of cancer and the treatment strategy) in older patients with a solid cancer.

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.

Geriatric assessment and quality of life for 2 years in older patients with head and neck cancer.

Due to the location and toxicity of treatments, head and neck cancer (HNC) has a major impact on quality of life (QoL). Objective: to assess the effects of geriatric-assessment (GA)-driven interventions on QoL over 2 years in older adults with HNC.EGeSOR was a randomized study of HNC patients aged ≥65, receiving a pretreatment GA, a geriatric intervention and follow-up (intervention) or standard of care (control). The primary endpoint was QoL score using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's (EORTC QLQ-C30) and HNC (QLQ-HN35) QoL questionnaires over 24 months.In total, 475 patients were included (median age: 75.3; women: 31%; oral cancer: 44%). QoL scores improved over 24 months with various trajectories, without significant differences between the groups. A total of 74% of patients (interventional group) did not receive the complete intervention. Cancer characteristics, functional status, and risk of frailty were associated with change in the Global Health Status QoL score.There is a need to develop an alternative model of implementation such as patient-centered health-care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02025062.

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.

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.

[Specificities of supportive care in geriatric oncology]. / Spécificités onco-gériatriques des soins de support.

Supportive care in geriatric oncology is crucial care that should be proposed from the beginning of cancer treatment. More than the quantity of life, the quality of life is a primary goal when treating cancer in the older patients. An initial assessment of the frailty of the older patients should be carried out. The eight domains requiring in-depth assessment are social environment, functional status, walking and balance, cognition, psychological status, co-morbidity and polypharmacy, nutrition and sensory deficiencies. The alteration of these domains has an impact on the patient's outcome, his quality of life and the tolerance of the treatment. One of the major challenges is to maintain the autonomy of the older patient, which involves preserving his functional status, his neuropsychological state and his nutritional state. Corrective actions for each of the domains must be implemented and must be adjusted throughout the course. It is also important to anticipate risks that may compromise or delay the continuation of anti-tumor treatment such as falls, delirium, organ decompensation, iatrogenic risk and social isolation.

Disease Progression in Older Patients With Renal Tumor Assigned to an Active Surveillance Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is a validated option for the treatment of small renal masses (SMRs), especially in older patients. This study investigates the oncologic outcomes and competitive mortality of older patients prospectively assigned to AS. METHODS: We conducted a monocentric study on patients ≥75 years treated between 2011 and 2016 for a SMR. Treatment modalities, biopsy data, survivals (overall, specific, cancer progression) and delayed interventions were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 106 patients (median age 80.5 years) were included, of which 41 were managed by AS during a follow-up of 3.4 years [0-7.1]. Seven patients (17%) had a primary biopsy with 3 confirmed renal cell carcinomas. Fourteen patients (34.1%) presented with progression (29.2% local; 4.9% metastatic), 8 (19.5%) requiring delayed interventions (75% ablative therapy and 25% radical nephrectomy). Overall survival (OS) was 68.3% and cancer specific survival was 95.1% during the study period. Competitive mortality was higher (84.6%) than cancer specific mortality (15.4%), P = .001. CONCLUSION: The growth rate of progression including 4.9% metastatic progression underlines the value of AS compared to simple watchful surveillance in the treatment of SMRs in older patients. Of note, the higher competitive mortality confirm that AS should be preferred to active intervention at the beginning of the management.

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.

The Prognostic Value of Eight Comorbidity Indices in Older Patients with Cancer: The ELCAPA Cohort Study.

Background: A prognostic assessment is crucial for making cancer treatment decisions in older patients. We assessed the prognostic performance (relative to one-year mortality) of eight comorbidity indices in a cohort of older patients with cancer. Methods: We studied patients with cancer aged ≥70 included in the Elderly Cancer Patient (ELCAPA) cohort between 2007 and 2010. We assessed seven nonspecific indices (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), three modified versions of the CCI, the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, the Gagne index, and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G)) and the National Cancer Institute Comorbidity Index. Results: Overall, 510 patients were included. Among patients with nonmetastatic cancer, all the comorbidity indices were independently associated with 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of 1.44 to 2.51 for one standard deviation increment; p < 0.05 for all) and had very good discriminant ability (Harrell's C > 0.8 for the eight indices), but were poorly calibrated. Among patients with metastatic cancer, only the CIRS-G was independently associated with 1-year mortality (aHR (95% confidence interval): 1.26 [1.06−1.50]). Discriminant ability was moderate (0.61 to 0.70) for the subsets of patients with metastatic cancer and colorectal cancer. Conclusion: Comorbidity indices had strong prognostic value and discriminative ability for one-year mortality in older patients with nonmetastatic cancer, although calibration was poor. In older patients with metastatic cancer, only the CIRS-G was predictive of one-year mortality.