Determining clinically important differences in health-related quality of life in older patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or surgery.

PURPOSE: Using the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, we aimed to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes for older cancer patients with a geriatric risk profile, as defined by the geriatric 8 (G8) health screening tool, undergoing treatment. Simultaneously, we assessed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes. METHODS: Our analysis included 1424 (G8 ≤ 14) older patients with cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy (n = 683) or surgery (n = 741). Anchor-based methods, linking the GHS score to clinical indicators, were used to determine MCID between baseline and follow-up at 3 months. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) was used to exclude MCID estimates too small for interpretation. Logistic regressions analysed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes. RESULTS: The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS15), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Fatigue and ECOG Performance Status (PS) were selected as clinical anchors. In the surgery group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (5*, 11*), GDS15 (5*, 2) and VAS Fatigue (3, 9*). In the chemotherapy group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (8*, 7*), GDS15 (5, 4) and VAS Fatigue (5, 5*). Estimates with * were > 0.2 SD threshold. Patients experiencing pain or malnutrition (surgery group) or fatigue (chemotherapy group) at baseline showed a significantly stable or improved HRQOL (p < 0.05) after their treatment. CONCLUSION: The reported MCID for improvement and deterioration depended on the anchor used and treatment received. The estimates can be used to evaluate significant changes in HRQOL and to determine sample sizes in clinical trials.

Adherence to geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: a multicenter prospective cohort study in Belgium.

Background: In the general older population, geriatric assessment (GA)-guided treatment plans can improve overall survival, quality of life and functional status (FS). In GA-related research in geriatric oncology, studies mainly focused on geriatric screening and GA but not on geriatric recommendations, interventions and follow-up. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken in older patients with cancer. Patient and methods: A prospective Belgian multicenter (N = 22) cohort study included patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor upon oncologic treatment decision. Patients with an abnormal result on the geriatric screening (G8 ≤14/17) underwent GA. Geriatric recommendations were formulated based on GA results. At follow-up the adherence to geriatric recommendations was documented including a description of actions undertaken. Results: From November 2012 till February 2015, G8 screening was carried out in 8451 patients, of which 5838 patients had an abnormal result. Geriatric recommendations data were available for 5631 patients. Geriatric recommendations were made for 4459 patients. Geriatric interventions data were available for 4167 patients. A total of 12 384 geriatric recommendations were made. At least one different geriatric recommendation was implemented in 2874 patients. A dietician, social worker and geriatrician intervened most frequently for problems detected on the nutritional, social and functional domain. A total of 7569 actions were undertaken for a total of 5725 geriatric interventions, most frequently nutritional support and supplements, extended home care and psychological support. Conclusions: This large-scale Belgian study focuses on the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken and contributes to the optimal management of older patients with cancer. We identified the domains for which geriatric recommendations are most frequently made and adhered to, and which referrals to other health care workers and facilities are frequently applied in the multidisciplinary approach of older patients with cancer.

Relevance of a systematic geriatric screening and assessment in older patients with cancer: results of a prospective multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the large-scale feasibility and usefulness of geriatric screening and assessment in clinical oncology practice by assessing the impact on the detection of unknown geriatric problems, geriatric interventions and treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients who had a malignant tumour were ≥70 years old and treatment decision had to be made. Patients were screened using G8; if abnormal (score ≤14/17) followed by Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). The assessment results were communicated to the treating physician using a predefined questionnaire to assess the topics mentioned above. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven patients were included in 10 hospitals. Of these patients, 70.7% had an abnormal G8 score warranting a CGA. Physicians were aware of the assessment results at the time of treatment decision in two-thirds of the patients (n = 1115; 61.3%). The assessment detected unknown geriatric problems in 51.2% of patients. When the physician was aware of the assessment results at the time of decision making, geriatric interventions were planned in 286 patients (25.7%) and the treatment decision was influenced in 282 patients (25.3%). CONCLUSION: Geriatric screening and assessment in older patients with cancer is feasible at large scale and has a significant impact on the detection of unknown geriatric problems, leading to geriatric interventions and adapted treatment.

A Belgian Survey on Geriatric Assessment in Oncology Focusing on Large-Scale Implementation and Related Barriers and Facilitators.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.

Rivizor--a new third-generation aromatase inhibitor for the treatment of advanced breast cancer after tamoxifen failure.

Rivizor (vorozole) is a new, highly potent and selective third-generation aromatase inhibitor for treatment of advanced breast cancer. In an open-label study, 30 postmenopausal women failing tamoxifen therapy received Rivizor 2.5 mg once daily until disease progression. Rivizor produced clinical benefit (partial response or no change) in 16 of 27 evaluable patients (59.3%). Five patients (18.5%) had a partial response (UICC criteria) which lasted for a median of 15 months (range 14-42.5 months), 11 patients had disease stabilization for a median of 14 months (7-24 months), and 11 patients had disease progression. Median time to first response was 3.9 months (3-27.5 months): estimated median survival time for all patients was 22.8 months (2-52.8 months) and estimated median time to disease progression was 10.8 months (1.4-42.4 months). Estradiol levels decreased to below limits of detection from 1st month of treatment until study end. Androstenedione, 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, and free-testosterone levels were unaffected by Rivizor. ACTH stimulation tests demonstrated that Rivizor does not interfere with adrenal mineralocorticoid and glucocorticoid steroid synthesis. Adverse events were mild-to-moderate. Rivizor might be an effective and well-tolerated alternative treatment for postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients following tamoxifen failure.

Clinical efficacy and endocrine activity of vorozole in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Results of a multicentric phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Aminoglutethimide was the first aromatase inhibitor to be used successfully in breast cancer patients. However, this drug also inhibits mineralcorticoid and glucocorticoid synthesis, making co-medication with corticosteroids necessary, and it is often poorly tolerated. The primary objective of this trial was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of vorozole, a new non-steroidal oral aromatase inhibitor, in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. The secondary objective was to evaluate the pharmacodynamic activity of the drug. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four postmenopausal patients previously treated with tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting and/ or for advanced disease were treated with vorozole, 2.5 mg once daily. Patients were monitored with respect to treatment efficacy and safety. Hormonal evaluations were performed at baseline and during the course of treatment in order to evaluate the pharmacodynamic efficacy and safety of vorozole. RESULTS: According to UICC criteria, there were seven responders, one complete and six partial, for an overall response rate of 21% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9%-38%). The median duration of response was 9.6 months (95% CI 4.6-0), the median time to progression for the entire group was 4.7 months (95% CI 2.9-6.6) and the median survival time was 29.7 months (95% CI 19.1-0). Tolerability was excellent to good in 97% of the patients. Oestradiol and oestrone levels were suppressed to the limit of detection of the assays used. No effect was observed on the other endocrine parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that vorozole is an effective and safe drug for the treatment of advanced postmenopausal breast cancer following tamoxifen failure.

Vorozole (Rivizor): an active and well tolerated new aromatase inhibitor for the treatment of advanced breast cancer patients with prior tamoxifen exposure. Investigational Drug Branch of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Breast Cancer Cooperative Group.

Vorozole (Rivizor) is a potent and stereospecific inhibitor of aromatase having shown promising endocrine effects in phase I studies. In the present trial, 27 postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer, measurable lesions, presumably hormone responsive (ER or PR+, or ER? with disease-free survival longer than 1 year, or prior documented response to tamoxifen), were treated with vorozole one tablet 2.5 mg daily. All had been previously treated with tamoxifen as adjuvant (two patients) or for advanced disease (24 patients), or both (one patient). Objective remissions were observed in eight patients (30%) with two complete responses (CR) and six partial responses (PR) lasting for a median of 14.3 months (range 6.8-40.6); nine stabilizations were also recorded (median 7.9 months; range 3.7-40.1). Median time to progression for the 27 patients was 5.9 months. Sites of response were skin (three patients), lymph nodes (two patients), lung (two patients) and chest wall plus lymph nodes (one patient). Treatment was very well tolerated: mild hot flushes (four patients), gastrointestinal complaints (four patients) and no significant toxicity (common toxicity criteria grade above 2) or drug-related severe adverse event. It is concluded that vorozole is an active second-line endocrine treatment, deserving consideration for randomized comparison with other agents such as aminoglutethimide, megestrol acetate or medroxyprogesterone acetate.