Short course radiotherapy versus radiochemotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancers in the elderly (UNICANCER PRODIGE 42/GERICO 12 study): Quality of life and comprehensive geriatric assessment.

BACKGROUND: The results of the PRODIGE 42/GERICO 12 study showed that short course radiotherapy had a better tolerance profile than radiochemotherapy, with comparable oncological results. We have included Quality of Life analyses and oncogeriatric evaluations in this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 101 patients ≥75 years of age with resectable T3-T4 rectal adenocarcinoma less than 12 cm from the anal margin received short course radiotherapy (5X5 Gy in one week) or radiochemotherapy (50 Gy, 2 y/f and capecitabine 800 mg/m2, 5 days/week) with delayed surgery (7 weeks ± 1) in both groups. The Quality of Life analyses (EORTC QLQ C-30 et ELD14) were conducted upon inclusion, pre-operatively, at 3, 6 and 12 months post-op, together with the oncogeriatric evaluations, including an evaluation of the IADL and ADL scores, walking speed, GDS15, MMSE, MNA. RESULTS: We did not highlight any statistical difference for the global EORTC QLQ-C30 score; several factors are statistically in favor of the short course radiotherapy group at 3 months post-op (cognitive functions, fatigue, appetite). In the case of the ELD14 score, the disease burden is perceived as more negative at 3, 6 and 12 months postop in the radiochemotherapy group. The IADL score deteriorated in 44.8 % of the radiochemotherapy group and 14.8 % of the radiotherapy group (p = 0.032); similarly, the GDS15 depression score was better preserved in the short course radiotherapy group (p = 0.05). An analysis of the other scores: ADL, walking speed, MNA, MMSE did not highlight any statistical difference. CONCLUSION: Short course radiotherapy achieves better results in terms of Quality of Life and preservation of autonomy in patients aged ≥75 treated for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Inside the Black Box: A Narrative Review on Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment-Driven Interventions in Older Adults with Cancer.

There is a consensus that the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is good clinical practice for older patients with solid tumors or hematological malignancies. To be complete, a CGA must include a geriatric assessment and an intervention plan. According to the SIOG consensus, a CGA should assess several domains: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and the presence of geriatric syndromes. Progress has been made in the definition of the best way to detect problems, but the benefits are mostly based on prognosis stratification and on the adaptation of cancer treatment. The present review aims to evaluate the level of evidence regarding geriatric interventions proposed following the detection of a problem in cancer patients in each domain mentioned in the SIOG consensus. An online search of the PubMed database was performed using predefined search algorithms specific for each domain of the CGA. Eligible articles had to have well-defined interventions targeting specific domains of the CGA. We screened 1864 articles, but only a few trials on single-domain interventions were found, and often, these studies involved small groups of patients. This review highlights the scarcity of published studies on this topic. The specific impacts of CGA-based interventions have not yet been demonstrated. Multi-domain interventions seem promising, especially when they are based on global assessments. However, standardization seems difficult considering the lack of evidence for each domain. New studies are necessary in multiple care contexts, and innovative designs must be used to balance internal and external validity. An accurate description of the intervention and what "usual care" means will improve the external validity of such studies.

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.

Identifying frailty in clinically fit patients diagnosed with hematological malignancies using a simple clinico-biological screening tool: The HEMA-4 study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to develop and validate a simple score to estimate survival in the older population suffering from malignant hemopathies. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 285 patients, aged ≥65 years, admitted to receive chemotherapy. At inclusion, a geriatric assessment was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were performed to assess correlations between vulnerabilities and one-year survival. We developed a frailty score, HEMA-4, based on the most powerful prognostic factors. It was externally confirmed with an independent cohort. RESULTS: In the development cohort, 206 patients were evaluable. Mean age was 76 years (range 65-90). The HEMA-4 score was created based on four independent predictive factors for survival: cognitive impairment (MMSE<27), comorbidities (≥2 on Charlson comorbidity index), CRP (≥10 mg/L) and low albumin level (<35 g/L). The population was stratified into three groups: good prognosis (score = 0-1, n = 141), intermediate prognosis (score = 2, n = 37) and poor prognosis (score = 3-4, n = 28). Their respective one-year survival was 74%, 51% (HR = 2.30; 95% CI =1.31-4.05; p < 0.01) and 36% (HR = 3.95; 95% CI =2.23-6.98; p < 0.01). In the validation cohort (n = 25), the one-year survival was 78% in the good prognosis group (n = 9) and 50% in the intermediate prognosis group (n = 6). The poor prognosis group had a median survival of four months in the development cohort and six months in the validation cohort (n = 10). CONCLUSION: The HEMA-4 score is a simple score that combines cognitive impairment, comorbidities, inflammation and low albumin level. Our data suggest that it predicts survival among older patients suffering from malignant hemopathies referred to receive chemotherapy regardless of their chronological age.

Sorafenib use in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: caution about use of platelet aggregation inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib is the standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The peak incidence of HCC is around 70 years. We aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of sorafenib in the elderly population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from patients treated with sorafenib for HCC at our institution. We compared safety and efficacy data across different age groups. RESULTS: Since 2005, 129 patients were treated, 78 (60.5 %) were <70 years old and 51 (39.5 %) were ≥70. The frequency of dose reduction was similar between the two groups (48.7 vs. 58.8 %), as was the occurrence of severe toxicities (41.0 vs. 51.0 %) and hospitalization due to toxicity (9.0 vs. 13.7 %). However, asthenia and bleeding were more frequent in the elderly. The higher frequency of bleeding was explained by concomitant antiplatelet treatments, and major asthenia was frequent in PS1 elderly patients. There was a trend toward less frequent interruption of treatment in the younger group (25.6 vs. 39.2 %) and significantly less frequent definitive discontinuation of treatment due to toxicity (24.4 vs. 45.1 %). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in both age groups, while median overall survival was 9.6 months in the younger age group and 12.6 months in the older age group. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib showed similar results in terms of safety and efficacy in the elderly and younger HCC populations. Careful baseline evaluation is needed for patient's selection in the elderly population, including discussion about antiplatelet therapy discontinuation and caution in PS1 patients, as well as active management of toxicity.

Prevalence and impact of frailty on mortality in elderly ICU patients: a prospective, multicenter, observational study.

PURPOSE: Frailty is a recent concept used for evaluating elderly individuals. Our study determined the prevalence of frailty in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and its impact on the rate of mortality. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, observational study performed in four ICUs in France included 196 patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for >24 h during a 6-month study period. Frailty was determined using the frailty phenotype (FP) and the clinical frailty score (CFS). The patients were separated as follows: FP score <3 or ≥3 and CFS <5 or ≥5. RESULTS: Frailty was observed in 41 and 23% of patients on the basis of an FP score ≥3 and a CFS ≥5, respectively. At admission to the ICU, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores did not differ between the frail and nonfrail patients. In the multivariate analysis, the risk factors for ICU mortality were FP score ≥3 [hazard ratio (HR), 3.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-6.6; p < 0.001], male gender (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.3; p = 0.026), cardiac arrest before admission (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-7.4; p = 0.036), SAPS II score ≥46 (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.3; p = 0.011), and brain injury before admission (HR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.7; p = 0.002). The risk factors for 6-month mortality were a CFS ≥5 (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.49-3.87; p < 0.001) and a SOFA score ≥7 (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.35-3.64; p = 0.002). An increased CFS was associated with significant incremental hospital and 6-month mortalities. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is a frequent occurrence and is independently associated with increased ICU and 6-month mortalities. Notably, the CFS predicts outcomes more effectively than the commonly used ICU illness scores.