Predicting Immunotherapy Outcomes in Older Patients with Solid Tumors Using the LIPI Score.

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) represents a valid therapeutic option in older patients for several solid cancer types. However, most of the data concerning efficacy and adverse events of ICB available are derived from younger and fitter patients. Reliable biomarkers are needed to better select the population that will benefit from ICB especially in older patients who may be at a higher risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with a greater impact on their quality of life. The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) is a score that combines pretreatment dNLR (neutrophils/[leukocytes − neutrophils]) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and is correlated with outcomes in patients treated with ICB in non-small-cell lung cancer. We aimed to assess the impact of LIPI in ICB outcomes in a dedicated cohort of older patients. The primary objective was to study the prognostic role of LIPI score in patients aged 70 years or above in a real-life population treated with anti-programmed death-(ligand)1 (anti PD-(L)1). dNLR and LDH were collected in a prospective cohort of patients aged 70 years or above treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors with metastatic disease between June 2014 and October 2017 at Gustave Roussy. LIPI categorizes the population into three different prognostic groups: good (dNLR ≤ 3 and LDH ≤ ULN­upper normal limit), intermediate (dNLR > 3 or LDH > ULN), and poor (dNLR > 3 and LDH > ULN). Anti PD-(L)1 benefit was analyzed according to overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) using RECIST v1.1. criteria. In the 191 older patients treated, most of them (95%) were ICB-naïve, and 160 (84%) had an ECOG performance status of 0−1 with a median age at ICB treatment of 77 (range, 70−93). The most common tumor types were melanoma (66%) and non-small-cell lung cancer (15%). The median follow-up duration was 18.8 months (95% CI 14.7−24.2). LIPI classified the population into three different groups: 38 (23%) patients had a good LIPI score, 84 (51%) had an intermediate LIPI score, and 43 (26%) had a poor LIPI score. The median OS was 20.7 months [95% CI, 12.6−not reached] compared to 11.2 months [95% CI, 8.41−22.2] and 4.7 months [95% CI, 2.2−11.3] in patients with a good, intermediate, and poor LIPI score, respectively (p = 0.0003). The median PFS was 9.2 months [95% CI, 6.2−18.1] in the good LIPI group, 7.2 months [95% CI, 5.4−13] in the intermediate LIPI group, and 3.9 months [95% CI, 2.3−8.2] in the poor LIPI group (p = 0.09). The rate of early death (OS < 3 months) was 37% in the poor LIPI group compared to 5% in the good LIPI group (<0.001). Poor LIPI score was associated with a poorer outcome in older patients treated with anti PD-(L)1. LIPI is a simple and accessible worldwide tool that can serve as a prognostic factor and can be useful for stratification benefit from ICB.

Perspectives on cancer care in older patients in France.

In France, cancer is the leading cause of death. Its incidence is increasing due to the growing population and longer life expectancy. Although older adults represent most new cases, they remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Their prognosis is often worse due to delayed diagnosis and multimorbidities. Geriatric oncology has made great strides worldwide, highlighted by important studies implementing geriatric assessment in clinical research and supported by the successive national cancer plans. This paper reviews the most important actions taken in France during the last decade to improve the management of older patients with cancer.

Impact of aging on immune-related adverse events generated by anti-programmed death (ligand)PD-(L)1 therapies.

BACKGROUND: Aging is an important risk factor for cancers and is associated with poor prognosis. Weakness of the immune system, also called immunosenescence may occur with older age. The impact of aging on efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint blockers, such as anti-programmed death (ligand) PD-(L)1, remains undetermined. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients aged 70 years or older than their younger counterparts. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors treated at Gustave Roussy with an anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy between June 2014 and October 2017 were prospectively included within the dedicated irAEs pharmacovigilance registry REISAMIC (Registre des Effets Indésirables Sévères des Anticorps Monoclonaux Immunomodulateurs en Cancérologie). The incidence of irAEs of grade ≥II was compared between patients aged ≥70 (old patients, OP) versus patients aged < 70 years (young patients, YP) using a chi-squared test. Survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among the 603 patients treated by anti-PD(L)1, 191 were ≥70 y.o (OP) and 424 < 70 y.o (YP). The median (range) age of OP and YP were respectively 77 (70-93) and 59 years old (17-69). A total of 165 irAEs occurred in these patients (103 grade II and 58 grade III-IV). The overall incidence of grade ≥II irAEs was higher in OP than in YP (33% versus 25%, p = 0.03). In addition, OP were more prone of having multiples irAEs compared with YP (p = 0.037). Skin toxicities were more frequent in OP than in YP (p = 0.007) but endocrine toxicities were less frequent in OP than in YP (p = 0.044). This higher level of irAEs seems to be responsible for a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in OP (p = 0.2). There was no statistical difference in median time to toxicity, exposure to steroids or survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Although anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapies remain an acceptable treatment option for older patients, prescribers should be aware that irAEs are more frequent in the elderly. Further translational studies are warranted to better understand the relationship between aging and irAEs.

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.

Accuracy of the G-8 geriatric-oncology screening tool for identifying vulnerable elderly patients with cancer according to tumour site: the ELCAPA-02 study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: G-8 screening tool showed good screening properties for identifying vulnerable elderly patients with cancer who would benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). We investigated whether tumour site and metastatic status affected its accuracy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Geriatric-oncology clinics of two teaching hospitals in the urban area of Paris. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 70 or over (n = 518) with breast ( n= 113), colorectal (n = 108), urinary-tract (n = 89), upper gastrointestinal/liver (n = 85), prostate (n = 69), or other cancers (n = 54). MEASUREMENTS: Reference standard for diagnosing vulnerability was the presence of at least one abnormal test among the Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Instrumental ADL, Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini Nutritional Assessment, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatrics, Timed Get-Up-and-Go, and Mini-Geriatric Depression Scale. Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios of G-8 scores ≤ 14 were compared according to tumour site and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Median age was 80; 48.2% had metastases. Prevalence of vulnerability and abnormal G-8 score was 84.2% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 81-87.3) and 79.5% (95% CI, 76-83). The G-8 was 86.9% sensitive (95% CI, 83.4-89.9) and 59.8% specific (95% CI, 48.3-70.4). G-8 performance varied significantly (all p values < 0.001) across tumour sites (sensitivity, 65.2% in prostate cancer to 95.1% in upper gastrointestinal/liver cancer; and specificity, 23.1% in colorectal cancer to 95.7% in prostate cancer) and metastatic status (sensitivity and specificity, 93.8% and 53.3% in patients with metastases vs. 79.5% and 63.3% in those without, respectively). Differences remained significant after adjustment on age and performance status. CONCLUSION: These G-8 accuracy variations across tumour sites should be considered when using G-8 to identify elderly patients with cancer who could benefit from CGA.

Masitinib as an adjunct therapy for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

INTRODUCTION: Neuroinflammation is thought to be important in Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis. Mast cells are a key component of the inflammatory network and participate in the regulation of the blood-brain barrier's permeability. Masitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, effectively inhibits the survival, migration and activity of mast cells. As the brain is rich in mast cells, the therapeutic potential of masitinib as an adjunct therapy to standard care was investigated. METHODS: A randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study was performed in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, receiving masitinib as an adjunct to cholinesterase inhibitor and/or memantine. Patients were randomly assigned to receive masitinib (n = 26) (starting dose of 3 or 6 mg/kg/day) or placebo (n = 8), administered twice daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) to assess cognitive function and the related patient response rate. RESULTS: The rate of clinically relevant cognitive decline according to the ADAS-Cog response (increase >4 points) after 12 and 24 weeks was significantly lower with masitinib adjunctive treatment compared with placebo (6% vs. 50% for both time points; P = 0.040 and P = 0.046, respectively). Moreover, whilst the placebo treatment arm showed worsening mean ADAS-Cog, Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Inventory, and Mini-Mental State Examination scores, the masitinib treatment arm reported improvements, with statistical significance between treatment arms at week 12 and/or week 24 (respectively, P = 0.016 and 0.030; P = 0.035 and 0.128; and P = 0.047 and 0.031). The mean treatment effect according to change in ADAS-Cog score relative to baseline at weeks 12 and 24 was 6.8 and 7.6, respectively. Adverse events occurred more frequently with masitinib treatment (65% vs. 38% of patients); however, the majority of events were of mild or moderate intensity and transitory. Severe adverse events occurred at a similar frequency in the masitinib and placebo arms (15% vs. 13% of patients, respectively). Masitinib-associated events included gastrointestinal disorders, oedema, and rash. CONCLUSIONS: Masitinib administered as add-on therapy to standard care during 24 weeks was associated with slower cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease, with an acceptable tolerance profile. Masitinib may therefore represent an innovative avenue of treatment in Alzheimer's disease. This trial provides evidence that may support a larger placebo-controlled investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00976118.