Outcomes in older adults with metastatic esophageal and gastric carcinoma treated with palliative chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma (GEC) in elderly patients is increasing, yet patients ≥75 years have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials. We sought to investigate palliative chemotherapy administration patterns and survival outcomes in older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis identified patients aged 65-74 (young-old) and ≥75 years (older-old) diagnosed with advanced GEC. Patient and tumor characteristics were recorded, with descriptive analysis, time-to-event data analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis performed. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-eight "young-old" and 109 'older-old' patients were identified. Patient characteristics were similar between groups except for Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI), with lower co-morbidities in the "young-old" compared to "older-old" cohort (P < .001; CCI = 0 in 103 (52%) "young-old" vs 31 (28%) "older-old"). The primary diagnosis in both groups was adenocarcinoma. 119 (60%) "young-old" and 25 (23%) "older-old" patients received chemotherapy (P < .001). Performance status was the primary explanation for chemotherapy non-receipt in both cohorts; age was the explanation in 21 (25%) "older-old" patients and none in the "young-old" patients. PFS for first-line systemic therapy in "young-old" patients was 6.4 (95% CI 5.9-7.6) versus 7.5 months (95% CI 5.1-11.3) in "older-old" patients (P = .69) whilst respective OS was 12.3 (95% CI 10.1-15.5) and 10.4 months (95% CI 9.0-14.6) (P = .0816). Toxicity prompted chemotherapy cessation in 17 (15%) "young-old" and 3 (13%) "older-old" patients (P = .97). Multivariate analysis identified CCI and ECOG performance status as predictive for PFS and OS, respectively. No causative relationship was identified with other variables. CONCLUSION: Our study of real-world older-adults show that significant number of "older-old" patients with GEC do not receive chemotherapy. Among "older-old" adults who do receive systemic therapy, outcomes are comparable; this underscores the importance of geriatric assessment-guided care and suggests that age alone should not be a barrier to receipt of chemotherapy in patients with advanced GEC.

Gastro-Esophageal Cancer: Can Radiomic Parameters from Baseline 18F-FDG-PET/CT Predict the Development of Distant Metastatic Disease?

We aimed to determine if clinical parameters and radiomics combined with sarcopenia status derived from baseline 18F-FDG-PET/CT could predict developing metastatic disease and overall survival (OS) in gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). Patients referred for primary staging who underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT from 2008 to 2019 were evaluated retrospectively. Overall, 243 GEC patients (mean age = 64) were enrolled. Clinical, histopathology, and sarcopenia data were obtained, and primary tumor radiomics features were extracted. For classification (early-stage vs. advanced disease), the association of the studied parameters was evaluated. Various clinical and radiomics models were developed and assessed. Accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. For OS prediction, univariable and multivariable Cox analyses were performed. The best model included PET/CT radiomics features, clinical data, and sarcopenia score (accuracy = 80%; AUC = 88%). For OS prediction, various clinical, CT, and PET features entered the multivariable analysis. Three clinical factors (advanced disease, age ≥ 70 and ECOG ≥ 2), along with one CT-derived and one PET-derived radiomics feature, retained their significance. Overall, 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomics seems to have a potential added value in identifying GEC patients with advanced disease and may enhance the performance of baseline clinical parameters. These features may also have a prognostic value for OS, improving the decision-making for GEC patients.

Performance of Large Language Models on Medical Oncology Examination Questions.

Importance: Large language models (LLMs) recently developed an unprecedented ability to answer questions. Studies of LLMs from other fields may not generalize to medical oncology, a high-stakes clinical setting requiring rapid integration of new information. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and safety of LLM answers on medical oncology examination questions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted between May 28 and October 11, 2023. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Oncology Self-Assessment Series on ASCO Connection, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Examination Trial questions, and an original set of board-style medical oncology multiple-choice questions were presented to 8 LLMs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of correct answers. Medical oncologists evaluated the explanations provided by the best LLM for accuracy, classified the types of errors, and estimated the likelihood and extent of potential clinical harm. Results: Proprietary LLM 2 correctly answered 125 of 147 questions (85.0%; 95% CI, 78.2%-90.4%; P < .001 vs random answering). Proprietary LLM 2 outperformed an earlier version, proprietary LLM 1, which correctly answered 89 of 147 questions (60.5%; 95% CI, 52.2%-68.5%; P < .001), and the best open-source LLM, Mixtral-8x7B-v0.1, which correctly answered 87 of 147 questions (59.2%; 95% CI, 50.0%-66.4%; P < .001). The explanations provided by proprietary LLM 2 contained no or minor errors for 138 of 147 questions (93.9%; 95% CI, 88.7%-97.2%). Incorrect responses were most commonly associated with errors in information retrieval, particularly with recent publications, followed by erroneous reasoning and reading comprehension. If acted upon in clinical practice, 18 of 22 incorrect answers (81.8%; 95% CI, 59.7%-94.8%) would have a medium or high likelihood of moderate to severe harm. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of the performance of LLMs on medical oncology examination questions, the best LLM answered questions with remarkable performance, although errors raised safety concerns. These results demonstrated an opportunity to develop and evaluate LLMs to improve health care clinician experiences and patient care, considering the potential impact on capabilities and safety.

Impact of an Inter-Professional Clinic on Pancreatic Cancer Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presents significant challenges in diagnosis, staging, and appropriate treatment. Furthermore, patients with PDAC often experience complex symptomatology and psychosocial implications that require multi-disciplinary and inter-professional supportive care management from health professionals. Despite these hurdles, the implementation of inter-professional clinic approaches showed promise in enhancing clinical outcomes. To assess the effectiveness of such an approach, we examined the impact of the Wallace McCain Centre for Pancreatic Cancer (WMCPC), an inter-professional clinic for patients with PDAC at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients diagnosed with PDAC who were seen at the PM before (July 2012-June 2014) and after (July 2014-June 2016) the establishment of the WMCPC. Standard therapies such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy remained consistent across both time periods. The cohorts were compared in terms of survival rates, disease stage, referral patterns, time to treatment, symptoms, and the proportion of patients assessed and supported by nursing and allied health professionals. Results: A total of 993 patients were included in the review, comprising 482 patients pre-WMCPC and 511 patients post-WMCPC. In the multivariate analysis, adjusting for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) and stage, it was found that post-WMCPC patients experienced longer median overall survival (mOS, HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98, p = 0.023). Furthermore, the time from referral to initial consultation date decreased significantly from 13.4 to 8.8 days in the post-WMCPC cohort (p < 0.001), along with a reduction in the time from the first clinic appointment to biopsy (14 vs. 8 days, p = 0.022). Additionally, patient-reported well-being scores showed improvement in the post-WMCPC cohort (p = 0.02), and these patients were more frequently attended to by nursing and allied health professionals (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The implementation of an inter-professional clinic for patients diagnosed with PDAC led to improvements in overall survival, patient-reported well-being, time to initial assessment visit and pathological diagnosis, and symptom management. These findings advocate for the adoption of an inter-professional clinic model in the treatment of patients with PDAC.

Exploring the Language Used to Describe Older Patients at Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences.

Older adults with cancer often present with distinct complexities that complicate their care, yet the language used to discuss their management at multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) remains poorly understood. A mixed methods study was conducted at a tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada, where MCCs spanning five tumour sites were attended over six months. For presentations pertaining to a patient aged 75 or older, a standardized data collection form was used to record their demographic, cancer-related, and non-cancer-related information, as well as the presenter's specialty and training level. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were employed to explore MCC depictions of older patients (n = 75). Frailty status was explicitly mentioned in 20.0% of presentations, but discussions more frequently referenced comorbidity burden (50.7%), age (33.3%), and projected treatment tolerance (30.7%) as surrogate measures. None of the presentations included mentions of formal geriatric assessment (GA) or validated frailty tools; instead, presenters tended to feature select GA domains and subjective descriptions of appearance ("looks to be fit") or overall health ("relatively healthy"). In general, MCCs appeared to rely on age-focused language that may perpetuate ageism. Further work is needed to investigate how frailty and geriatric considerations can be objectively incorporated into discussions in geriatric oncology.

Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Prognostication in Gastroesophageal Cancer: Results of a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) are self-reflections of an individual's physical functioning and emotional well-being. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a simple and validated PRO tool of 10 common symptoms and a patient-reported functional status (PRFS) measure. The prognostic value of this tool is unknown in patients with gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). In this study, we examined the association between the ESAS score and overall survival (OS) in patients with GEC, the prognostication difference between ESAS and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and assessed the correlation between PRFS and the physician-reported ECOG performance status (PS). METHODS: The study was a retrospective cohort study of 211 patients with GEC with localized (stages I-III) and metastatic disease who completed at least one baseline ESAS prior to treatment. Patients were grouped into 3 cohorts based on ESAS score. OS was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the concordance index (c-index) was calculated for ESAS and physician-reported ECOG. The agreement between PRFS and physician-ECOG was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 211 patients were included. The median age was 60.8 years; 90% of patients were ECOG PS 0-1; 38% of patients were stages I-III, while 62% were de novo metastatic patients. Median OS in low, moderate, high symptom burden (SB) patients' cohorts was 19.17 m, 16.39 mm, and 12.68 m, respectively (P < .04). The ability to predict death was similar between physician-ECOG and ESAS (c-index 0.56 and 0.5753, respectively) and PRFS and physician-ECOG (c-index of 0.5615 and 0.5545, respectively). The PS agreement between patients and physicians was 50% with a weighted Kappa of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.17-0.38). CONCLUSION: Patient's SB seems to carry a prognostic significance. ESAS and physician-reported ECOG exhibit comparable prognostic values. Physicians and patients can frequently have divergent opinions on PS. ESAS takes a patient-centered approach and should be encouraged in practice among patients with GEC as an additional tool for prognostication.

Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis and brain metastases in gastroesophageal carcinoma: a real-world analysis of clinical and pathologic characteristics and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastasis (BrM) and Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis (LMC) are uncommon complications in gastroesophageal carcinoma (GEC) patients. These patients have a poor prognosis and are challenging to treat. We described the clinicopathologic features and outcomes in the largest cohort of Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis in GEC patients. METHODS: single-center retrospective study of GEC treated from 2007 to 2021. Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment modalities were reviewed. Survival was calculated from the date of CNS diagnosis until date of death/last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used. RESULTS: Of 3283 GEC patients, 100 (3.04%) were diagnosed with BrM and 20 with LMC (0.61%). Patients with known human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status (N = 48), 60% were HER2 positive (defined as IHC 3 + or IHC 2+/FISH+). Among LMC patients most were signet-ring subtype (85%), and only 15% (2/13) were HER2 positive. Median survival was 0.7; 3.8; and 7.7 months in BrM patients treated with best supportive care, radiation, and surgery, respectively (p < 0.001). In LMC, median survival was 0.7 month in patients who had best supportive care (7/19) and 2.8 months for those who had whole brain radiation therapy (p = 0.015). Multivariate analysis showed worse outcomes in ECOG ≥ 2 (p = 0.002), number of BrM ≥ 4 (p < 0.001) and number of metastatic sites (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: HER2 expression were enriched in patients with BrM, while it is uncommon in LMC. Patients treated with surgery followed by radiation had an improved OS in BrM and WBRT benefited patients with LMC.

First impressions: A prospective evaluation of patient-physician concordance and satisfaction following the initial medical oncology consultation.

BACKGROUND: An especially significant event in the patient-oncologist relationship is the initial consultation, where many complex topics-diagnosis, treatment intent, and often, prognosis-are discussed in a relatively short period of time. This study aimed to measure patients' understanding of the information discussed during their first medical oncology visit and their satisfaction with the communication from medical oncologists. METHODS: Between January and August 2021, patients without prior systemic treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancy (GI) attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) were approached within 24 h of their initial consultation to complete a paper-based questionnaire assessing understanding of their disease (diagnosis, treatment plan/intent, and prognosis) and satisfaction with the consultation. Medical oncology physicians simultaneously completed a similar questionnaire about the information discussed at the initial visit. Matched patient-physician responses were compared to assess the degree of concordance. RESULTS: A total of 184 matched patient-physician surveys were completed. The concordance rates for understanding of diagnosis, treatment plan, treatment intent, and prognosis were 92.9%, 59.2%, 66.8%, and 59.8%, respectively. After adjusting for patient and physician variables, patients who reported treatment intent to be unclear at the time of the consultation were independently associated with lower satisfaction scores (global p = 0.014). There was no statistically significant association between patient satisfaction and whether prognosis was disclosed (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: An in-depth conversation as to what treatment intent and prognosis means is reasonable during the initial medical oncology consultation to ensure patients and caregivers have a better understanding about their cancer.

Combination of clinical, radiomic, and "delta" radiomic features in survival prediction of metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Objectives: To identify combined clinical, radiomic, and delta-radiomic features in metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (GEAs) that may predict survival outcomes. Methods: A total of 166 patients with metastatic GEAs on palliative chemotherapy with baseline and treatment/follow-up (8-12 weeks) contrast-enhanced CT were retrospectively identified. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Three-dimensional whole-lesional radiomic analysis was performed on the treatment/follow-up scans. "Delta" radiomic features were calculated based on the change in radiomic parameters compared to the baseline. The univariable analysis (UVA) Cox proportional hazards model was used to select clinical variables predictive of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) (p-value <0.05). The radiomic and "delta" features were then assessed in a multivariable analysis (MVA) Cox model in combination with clinical features identified on UVA. Features with a p-value <0.01 in the MVA models were selected to assess their pairwise correlation. Only non-highly correlated features (Pearson's correlation coefficient <0.7) were included in the final model. Leave-one-out cross-validation method was used, and the 1-year area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated for PFS and OS. Results: Of the 166 patients (median age of 59.8 years), 114 (69%) were male, 139 (84%) were non-Asian, and 147 (89%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1. The median PFS and OS on treatment were 3.6 months (95% CI 2.86, 4.63) and 9 months (95% CI 7.49, 11.04), respectively. On UVA, the number of chemotherapy cycles and number of lesions at the end of treatment were associated with both PFS and OS (p < 0.001). ECOG status was associated with OS (p = 0.0063), but not PFS (p = 0.054). Of the delta-radiomic features, delta conventional HUmin, delta gray-level zone length matrix (GLZLM) GLNU, and delta GLZLM LGZE were incorporated into the model for PFS, and delta shape compacity was incorporated in the model for OS. Of the treatment/follow-up radiomic features, shape compacity and neighborhood gray-level dependence matrix (NGLDM) contrast were used in both models. The combined 1-year AUC (Kaplan-Meier estimator) was 0.82 and 0.81 for PFS and OS, respectively. Conclusions: A combination of clinical, radiomics, and delta-radiomic features may predict PFS and OS in GEAs with reasonable accuracy.

Implementing geriatric assessment and management for older Canadians with cancer: Adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention, results of the 5C study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) is recommended by professional organizations and recently several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits in multiple health outcomes. GAM typically leads to one or more recommendations for the older adult on how to optimize their health. However, little is known about how well recommendations are adhered to. Understanding these issues is vital to designing GAM trials and clinical programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the number of GAM recommendations made and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention in a multicentre RCT of GAM for older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel RCT conducted in eight hospitals across Canada. Each centre kept a detailed recruitment and retention log. The intervention teams documented adherence to their recommendations. Medical records were also reviewed to assess which recommendations were adhered to. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 members of the intervention teams and 11 oncology team members to assess implementation of the study and the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 350 participants who were enrolled, 173 were randomized to the intervention arm. Median number of recommendations was seven. Mean adherence to recommendations based on the GAM was 69%, but it varied by type of recommendation, ranging from 98% for laboratory tests to 28% for psychosocial/psychiatry oncology referrals. There was no difference in the number of recommendations or non-adherence to recommendations by sex, level of frailty, or functional status. Oncologists and intervention team members were satisfied with the study implementation and intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: Adherence to recommendations was variable. Adherence to laboratory investigations and further imaging were generally high but much lower for recommendations regarding psychosocial support. Further collaborative work with older adults with cancer is needed to understand how to optimize the intervention to be consistent with patient goals, priorities, and values to ensure maximal impact on health outcomes.

Prognostic Value of Sarcopenia and Metabolic Parameters of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in Patients with Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer.

We investigated the prognostic value of sarcopenia measurements and metabolic parameters of primary tumors derived from 18F-FDG-PET/CT among patients with primary, metastatic esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer. A total of 128 patients (26 females; 102 males; mean age 63.5 ± 11.7 years; age range: 29-91 years) with advanced metastatic gastroesophageal cancer who underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT as part of their initial staging between November 2008 and December 2019 were included. Mean and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) and SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) were measured. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) was measured at the level of L3 on the CT component of the 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Sarcopenia was defined as SMI < 34.4 cm2/m2 in women and <45.4 cm2/m2 in men. A total of 60/128 patients (47%) had sarcopenia on baseline 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Mean SMI in patients with sarcopenia was 29.7 cm2/m2 in females and 37.5 cm2/m2 in males. In a univariable analysis, ECOG (<0.001), bone metastases (p = 0.028), SMI (p = 0.0075) and dichotomized sarcopenia score (p = 0.033) were significant prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Age was a poor prognostic factor for OS (p = 0.017). Standard metabolic parameters were not statistically significant in the univariable analysis and thus were not evaluated further. In a multivariable analysis, ECOG (p < 0.001) and bone metastases (p = 0.019) remained significant poor prognostic factors for OS and PFS. The final model demonstrated improved OS and PFS prognostication when combining clinical parameters with imaging-derived sarcopenia measurements but not metabolic tumor parameters. In summary, the combination of clinical parameters and sarcopenia status, but not standard metabolic values from 18F-FDG-PET/CT, may improve survival prognostication in patients with advanced, metastatic gastroesophageal cancer.

Differential prognostic significance of sarcopenia in metastatic esophageal squamous and adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia indicates poor prognosis in various malignancies. We evaluated the association of sarcopenia with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic esophageal cancer (MEC) patients, a population often presenting with poor nutritional status. METHODS: In newly diagnosed MEC patients managed at the Princess Margaret (PM) Cancer Centre (diagnosed 2006-2015), total muscle area, visceral adiposity (VA), and subcutaneous adiposity (SA) were quantified on abdominal computed tomography at L3. Sarcopenia was determined using published cutoffs, based on sex and height. RESULTS: Of 202 MEC patients, most were male (166/82%), < 65 years (116/57%), and had adenocarcinoma histology (141/70%); 110/54% had recurrent MEC after initial curative-intent treatment; 92/46% presented with de novo MEC. At stage IV diagnosis, 20/10% were underweight, 97/48% were normal-weight and 84/42% were overweight/obese; 103/51% were sarcopenic. Sarcopenia was associated with worse median OS (4.6 vs. 7.9 months; log-rank p = 0.03) and 1-year survival, even after adjusting for other body composition variables (e.g., BMI, VA, and SA): adjusted-HR 1.51 [95% CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.02]. In post hoc analysis, sarcopenia was highly prognostic in adenocarcinomas (p = 0.003), but not squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). In patients receiving palliative systemic treatment (104/51%), sarcopenia was associated with shorter PFS (p = 0.004) in adenocarcinoma patients (75/72%). CONCLUSIONS: In metastatic esophageal adenocarcinomas, sarcopenia is associated with worse PFS and OS. In metastatic esophageal SCC, there was a non-significant trend for worse PFS but no association with OS. In order to offset the poor prognosis associated with sarcopenia particularly in metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma patients, future research should focus on possible countermeasures.

Impact of Geriatric Assessment and Management on Quality of Life, Unplanned Hospitalizations, Toxicity, and Survival for Older Adults With Cancer: The Randomized 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends that older adults with cancer being considered for chemotherapy receive geriatric assessment (GA) and management (GAM), but few randomized controlled trials have examined its impact on quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel 1:1 single-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial of GAM for 6 months versus usual oncologic care. Eligible patients were age 70+ years, diagnosed with a solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma, referred for first-/second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy or targeted therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary outcome QOL was measured with the global health scale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire and analyzed with a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 6 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes included functional status, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity; health care use; satisfaction; cancer treatment plan modification; and overall survival. RESULTS: From March 2018 to March 2020, 350 participants were enrolled. Mean age was 76 years and 40.3% were female. Fifty-four percent started treatment with palliative intent. Eighty-one (23.1%) patients died. GAM did not improve QOL (global QOL of 4.4 points [95% CI, 0.9 to 8.0] favoring the control arm). There was also no difference in survival, change in treatment plan, unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, and treatment toxicity between groups. CONCLUSION: GAM did not improve QOL. Most intervention group participants received GA on or after treatment initiation per patient request. Considering recent completed trials, GA may have benefit if completed before treatment selection. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected our QOL outcome and intervention delivery for some participants.

The development of an electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive health assessment for my plan (CHAMP).

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) provides information on key health domains of older adults and is recommended to help inform cancer treatment decisions and cancer care. However, GA is not feasible in many health institutions due to lack of geriatric staff and/or resources. To increase accessibility to GA and improve treatment decision making for older adults with cancer (≥65 years), we developed a self-reported, electronic geriatric assessment tool: Comprehensive Assessment for My Plan (CHAMP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Older adults with cancer were invited to join user-centered design sessions to develop the layout and content of the tool. Subsequently, they participated in usability testing to test the usability of the tool (ease of use, acceptability, etc.). Design sessions were also conducted with oncology clinicians (oncologists and nurses) to develop the tool's clinician interface. GA assessment questions and GA recommendations were guided by a systematic review and Delphi expert panel. RESULTS: A total of seventeen older adults participated in the study. Participants were mainly males (82.4%) and 75% were aged 75 years and older. Nine oncology clinicians participated in design sessions. Older adults and clinicians agreed that the tool was user-friendly. Domains in the final CHAMP tool (with questions and recommendations) included functional status, falls risk, cognitive impairment, nutrition, medication review, social supports, depression, substance use disorder, and miscellaneous items. DISCUSSION: CHAMP was designed for use by older adults and oncologists and may enhance access to GA for older adults with cancer. The next phase of the CHAMP study will involve field validation in oncology clinics.

Comparison of Four Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Advanced Gastric and Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic scores that can identify patients at risk for early death are needed to aid treatment decision-making and patient selection for clinical trials. We compared the accuracy of four scores to predict early death (within 90 days) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer. METHODS: Advanced GE cancer patients receiving first-line systemic therapy were included. Prognostic risks were calculated using: Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm-Score), and MD Anderson Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (MDA-ICI) scores. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze associations between prognostic scores and OS. The predictive discrimination was estimated using Harrell's c-index. Predictive ability for early death was measured using time-dependent AUCs. RESULTS: In total, 451 patients with metastatic GE cancer were included. High risk patients had shorter OS for all scores (RMH high- vs. low-risk median OS 7.9 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001; MDACC 6.8 vs. 11.9 months P < .001; GRIm-Score 5.3 vs. 13 months, P < .001; MDA-ICI 8.2 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, each prognostic score was significantly associated with OS. The GRIm-Score had the highest predictive discrimination and predictive ability for early death. CONCLUSIONS: The GRIm-Score had the highest accuracy in predicting early death and OS. Clinicians may use this score to identify patients at higher risk of early death to guide treatment decisions including clinical trial enrolment. This score could also be used as a stratification factor in future clinical trial designs.

Germline BRCA2 variants in advanced pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma: A case report and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma (PACC) is a rare tumor. Up to 45% of PACCs have alterations in the DNA damage repair pathway and 23% harbor rearrangements in the BRAF or RAF1 genes. We present a PACC case with a germline BRCA2 likely pathogenic variant (LPV) to highlight the impact of genomic testing on treatment decisions and patient outcomes. In our larger case series, we provide clinic-based information on additional 10 PACC patients treated in our center. CASE SUMMARY: A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with advanced PACC. At presentation, he was cachectic with severe arthralgia despite prednisolone and a skin rash that was later confirmed to be panniculitis. He was treated with modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) with the knowledge of the germline BRCA2 LPV. Following 11 cycles of mFFX, a computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrated significant tumor response in the pancreatic primary and hepatic metastases, totaling 70% from baseline as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Resolution of the skin panniculitis was also noted. We identified two additional PACCs with druggable targets in our case series. Our data contribute to practical evidence for the value of germline and somatic profiling in the management of rare diseases like PACC. CONCLUSION: This patient and others in our larger case series highlight the importance of genomic testing in PACC with potential utility in personalized treatment.

Prognostic Value of [18F]-FDG PET/CT Radiomics Combined with Sarcopenia Status among Patients with Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer.

We investigated, whether 18[18F]-FDG PET/CT-derived radiomics combined with sarcopenia measurements improves survival prognostication among patients with advanced, metastatic gastroesophageal cancer. In our study, 128 consecutive patients with advanced, metastatic esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer (n = 128; 26 females; 102 males; mean age 63.5 ± 11.7 years; age range: 29−91 years) undergoing 18[18F]-FDG PET/CT for staging between November 2008 and December 2019 were included. Segmentation of the primary tumor and radiomics analysis derived from PET and CT images was performed semi-automatically with a commonly used open-source software platform (LIFEX, Version 6.30, lifexsoft.org). Patients' nutritional status was determined by measuring the skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the level of L3 on the CT component. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to establish a survival prediction model including radiomics, clinical data, and SMI score. Univariable Cox proportional hazards model revealed ECOG (<0.001) and bone metastasis (p = 0.028) to be significant clinical parameters for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Age (p = 0.017) was an additional prognostic factor for OS. Multivariable analysis showed improved prognostication for overall and progression free survival when adding sarcopenic status, PET and CT radiomics to the model with clinical parameters only. PET and CT radiomics derived from hybrid 18[18F]-FDG PET/CT combined with sarcopenia measurements and clinical parameters may improve survival prediction among patients with advanced, metastatic gastroesophageal cancer.

Randomised, Phase II study of selumetinib, an oral inhibitor of MEK, in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cisplatin and gemcitabine (CisGem) are standard chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). The MEK inhibitor selumetinib showed synergy with gemcitabine when administered sequentially in BTC. This randomised Phase 2 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of sequential or continuous selumetinib with CisGem. METHODS: Patients with advanced BTC received CisGem; arm A included selumetinib every day, arm B: selumetinib, days 1-5, 8-19 each cycle. Arm C received CisGem alone. Selumetinib was dosed at 75 mg BID but amended to 50 mg BID due to toxicity. RESULTS: In all, 51 participants were evaluable for response. No significant difference was seen in mean change in tumour size at 10 weeks between arms A and C (-7.8% vs -12.8%, P = 0.54) or arms B and C (-15% vs -12.8%, P = 0.78). There was no difference in median progression-free survival (6.0, 7.0, 6.3 months, P > 0.95) or overall survival (11.7, 11.7, 12.8 months, P = 0.70) for arms A, B and C, respectively. More participants experienced grade 3-4 toxicities in selumetinib-containing arms. More participants in arm A required chemotherapy dose reductions (P = 0.01) with lower chemotherapy dose intensity during the first 10 weeks. CONCLUSION: Adding sequential or continuous selumetinib to CisGem failed to improve efficacy and increased toxicity in patients with advanced BTC.

Impact of Sites of Metastatic Dissemination on Survival in Advanced Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) is a heterogeneous disease with an overall poor prognosis. The impact of sites of metastatic dissemination on survival is not well characterized. This study aimed to evaluate whether certain sites of metastatic disease impacts survival. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 375 patients with metastatic GEA treated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2006 to 2016 was performed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association between sites of metastases and OS adjusting for baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: Median duration of follow-up was 47.8 months. Median OS in this cohort was 11.8 months (95% CI: 10.2-12.9 months). Patients with lymph node only disease, compared to those with other sites of metastases, had the longest median OS (20.4 vs. 10.6 months; p < 0.001) and PFS (11.4 vs. 6.3 months; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis adjusting for relevant clinical factors including age, sex, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the presence of lung (HR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.23-2.26; p < 0.001) or bone metastases (HR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.31-2.59; p < 0.001) were independently associated with shorter OS. The majority of patients (68%) were treated with palliative intent first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Patients with metastatic GEA have an overall poor prognosis. The presence of lung or bone metastases is an independent risk factor for decreased survival. Prognostic models incorporating sites of metastasis should be considered in the clinical evaluation of metastatic GEA.

Combined 18 F-FDG PET/CT Radiomics and Sarcopenia Score in Predicting Relapse-Free Survival and Overall Survival in Patients With Esophagogastric Cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine if radiomic features combined with sarcopenia measurements on pretreatment 18 F-FDG PET/CT can improve outcome prediction in surgically treated adenocarcinoma esophagogastric cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-five esophageal adenocarcinoma patients with curative therapeutic intent and available pretreatment 18 F-FDG PET/CT were included. Textural features from PET and CT images were evaluated using LIFEx software ( lifexsoft.org ). Sarcopenia measurements were done by measuring the Skeletal Muscle Index at L3 level on the CT component. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to create a model including the radiomic parameters, clinical features, and Skeletal Muscle Index score to predict patients' outcome. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, we combined clinicopathological parameters including ECOG, surgical T, and N staging along with imaging derived sarcopenia measurements and radiomic features to build a predictor model for relapse-free survival and overall survival. Overall, adding sarcopenic status to the model with clinical features only (likelihood ratio test P = 0.03) and CT feature ( P = 0.0037) improved the model fit for overall survival. Similarly, adding sarcopenic status ( P = 0.051), CT feature ( P = 0.042), and PET feature ( P = 0.011) improved the model fit for relapse-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: PET and CT radiomics derived from combined PET/CT integrated with clinicopathological parameters and sarcopenia measurement might improve outcome prediction in patients with nonmetastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.