A propensity score-matched comparison of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin-5FU and carboplatin-paclitaxel in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A Turkish oncology group study.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant treatment is the standard treatment in locally advanced ESCC. However, the optimal chemotherapy regimen is not known. METHOD: This is a retrospective observational cohort study conducted with propensity score matching. Patients with resectable ESCC from 13 tertiary centers from Türkiye were screened between January 2011 and December 2021. We compared the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with the CF and the CROSS regimens in patients with ESCC. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-two patients were screened. Patients who received induction chemotherapy (n = 72) and CROSS-ineligible (n = 31) were excluded. Two hundred and fifty nine patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. After propensity score matching (n = 97 in both groups), the mPFS was 18.4 months (95% CI, 9.3-27.4) and 25.7 months (95% CI, 15.6-35.7; p = 0.974), and the mOS was 35.2 months (95% CI, 18.9-51.5) and 39.6 months (95% CI 20.1-59.2; p = 0.534), in the CF and the CROSS groups, respectively. There was no difference between subgroups regarding PFS and OS. Compared with the CF group, the CROSS group had a higher incidence of neutropenia (34.0% vs. 62.9%, p < 0.001) and anemia (54.6% vs. 75.3%, p = 0.003) in all grades. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in grade 3-4 anemia, grade 3-4 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia between groups. There were more dose reductions and dose delays in the CROSS group than in the CF group (11.3% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.026 and 34.0% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.009, respectively). The resection rate was 52.6% in the CF-RT and 35.1% in the CROSS groups (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Favorable PFS and pCR rates and a comparable OS were obtained with the CROSS regimen over the CF regimen as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with ESCC.

Prevalence and co-incidence of geriatric syndromes according to the ECOG performance status in older cancer patients.

Background: Geriatric syndromes may be more common in older cancer patients than in those without cancer. Geriatric syndromes can cause poor clinical outcomes. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) is often used as a clinically reported functional status score in oncology practice. Methods: Our study was designed as a cross-sectional study and included 218 older cancer patients. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and relationship of geriatric syndromes according to the ECOG-PS in older cancer patients. Results: The mean age of 218 participants was 73.0 ± 5.6 years, with 47.7% being women and 52.3% men in our study. ECOG-PS 0, 1, and 2 groups contained 51, 39, and 10% of the patients, respectively. The mean number of geriatric syndromes in the ECOG 0, 1, and 2 groups was 2.3 ± 2.2, 4.3 ± 2.4, and 5.7 ± 2.1, respectively (p < 0.001). After adjusting for age and sex, it was determined that dynapenia was 2.9 times, probable sarcopenia was 3.5 times, frailty was 4.2 times, depression was 2.6 times, malnutrition was 3.3 times, insomnia 2 was.2 times, falls was 2.5 times, and the risk of falling (TUG) was 2.4 times more likely in those with ECOG-PS 1 compared to those with ECOG-PS 0. In addition, it was found that dynapenia was 6 times, probable sarcopenia was 6.8 times, frailty was 10.8 times, depression was 3.3 times, malnutrition was 6.3 times, the risk of falling (Tinnetti Balance) was 28 times, and the risk of falling (TUG) was 13.6 times more likely in those with ECOG-PS 2 compared to those with ECOG-PS 0. Conclusion: Our study found that the prevalence of geriatric syndromes increased as the ECOG-PS increased. Geriatric syndromes and their co-incidence were common in older cancer patients, even in normal performance status. Oncologists should incorporate geriatric syndromes into the decision-making process of cancer treatment to maximize the impact on clinical outcomes in older patients with cancer.

The risk of malnutrition and its clinical implications in older patients with cancer.

AIM: Malnutrition is a common geriatric syndrome with multiple negative outcomes including mortality. However, there is a scarcity of literature that focuses on the relationship between malnutrition risk and its clinical implications on geriatric syndromes and mortality among cancer patients. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical importance of malnutrition risk in geriatric oncology practice. METHOD: 180 patients with cancer who were ≥ 65 years were included in the study. All patients were questioned in terms of geriatric syndromes, including polypharmacy, frailty, probable sarcopenia, fall risk, dynapenia, depression, cognitive impairment, insomnia, and excessive daytime sleepiness. Mini Nutritional Assessment scores > 23.5 and 17-23.5 were categorized as well-nourished and malnutrition risk, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 180 patients (mean age 73.0 ± 5.6 years, female: 50%), the prevalence of malnutrition risk was 28.9%. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, gender, education, marital status, body mass index, and comorbidities except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p > 0.05). After adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index; polypharmacy (odds ratio [OR]: 3.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-6.81), reduced calf circumference (OR: 3.72; 95% CI, 1.22-11.38), fall risk (OR: 2.72; 95% CI, 1.03-7.23), depression (OR: 6.24; 95% CI, 2.75-14.18), insomnia (OR: 4.89; 95% CI, 2.16-11.05), and frailty (OR: 2.44; 95% CI, 1.75-3.40) were associated with malnutrition risk compared to well-nourished patients (p < 0.05). Median survival in patients with malnutrition risk was 21.3 months (range 14.1-28.4 95% CI) and median survival in patients who were defined as well nourished was not reached (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The risk of malnutrition was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in older patients with cancer, and was associated with many geriatric syndromes, including polypharmacy, fall risk, frailty, insomnia, and depression.

The efficacy of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and CoronaVac vaccines in patients with cancer.

Although vaccination is efficacious and prevents infection in the general population, there is limited data about Coronavirus disease-19 (Covid-19) occurrence after vaccination in cancer patients. It was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and CoronaVac vaccines against Covid-19 in patients with cancer. In this single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional, and descriptive study, the data of cancer patients referred to the medical oncology clinic of a university hospital were analyzed. The sample of the study consisted of cancer patients who had Covid-19 or were vaccinated against Covid-19. A total number of 2578 patients were included in the study. Of the patients, 2000 have never been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and 578 patients have had a positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for Covid-19. It was found that 2094 patients (81.2%) were fully vaccinated, and 484 patients (18.8%) did not receive full-dose vaccination. A statistically significant difference in Covid-19 occurrence was found between the patients who had full-dose vaccination or not (p = 0.000). In in-group comparisons of full-dose vaccinated patients, while no difference was observed between two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and three doses of CoronaVac (p = 0.432), a statistically significant difference was observed between all other groups (p < 0.005). When the data of 578 patients who experienced Covid-19 was analyzed, a statistically significant difference was observed between the groups who were full-dose vaccinated and those who were not (p = 0.000). It is recommended that this vulnerable patient group should be prioritized in vaccination programs, and full-dose vaccination (at least two doses of vaccines) should be completed as soon as possible.