Physical performance measures for predicting outcome in cancer patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Decision making regarding cancer treatment is challenging and there is a need for clinical parameters that can guide these decisions. As physical performance appears to be a reflection of health status, the aim of this systematic review is to assess whether physical performance tests (PPTs) are predictive of the clinical outcome and treatment tolerance in cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 2 April 2015 in the electronic databases Medline and Embase to identify studies focusing on the association between objectively measured PPTs and outcome. No limitations in language or publication dates were applied. RESULTS: The search retrieved 9680 articles, 16 publications were included involving 4187 patients with various cancer types and different treatments. Reported median or mean age varied from 58 to 78 years. Nine studies used the Timed Up & Go (TUG) test, five the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and five studies focused on gait speed. Poorer TUG, SPPB and gait speed outcome were associated with decreased survival. TUG, SPPB and gait speed were also associated with treatment-related complications. Furthermore, two studies reported an association between poorer TUG and SPPB outcome with higher rates of functional decline. CONCLUSION: PPTs appear to show a significant correlation with survival and these tests could be used as a prognostic tool, particular for older adult patients. A less explicit correlation for treatment-related complications and functional decline was also found. To optimize decision making, future research should focus on developing and validating individualized treatment algorithms that incorporate PPTs in addition to cancer- and treatment-related variables.

Age-related guideline adherence and outcome in low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Care for elderly patients with low rectal cancer can pose dilemmas, because radical total mesorectal excision surgery comes with high morbidity and mortality rates. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the treatment of patients with low rectal cancer, comparing treatment choices, guideline adherence, and outcomes for elderly patients (≥75 years) with younger patients (<75 years). DESIGN: Patient data were retrieved from the hospital pathology database and from the hospital prospective colorectal surgery database for surgically treated patients. Records were reviewed for nonadherence to treatment guidelines. Delivered treatment modalities for patients with stage I to III rectal cancer were compared with treatment advised by national guidelines, and reasons stated by the treating physician for nonadherence to guidelines were subsequently collected. SETTINGS: This study was performed at a high-volume teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients included were those with newly diagnosed rectal cancer (≤10 cm from the anal verge). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment decisions, guideline adherence, and outcome of surgical treatment were the main outcome parameters. RESULTS: Of 218 included patients, 75 (34%) were aged ≥75 years. Guideline adherence for all of the treatment modalities in stage I to III rectal cancer was significantly lower in elderly patients (62% versus 87% for aged <75 years; p < 0.001), and age was the primary reason mentioned for withholding treatment. Palliative anticancer treatment for stage IV disease was also initiated significantly less frequently in elderly patients (60% versus 97%; p = 0.002). Overall rates of treatment complications were similar for both patient groups (p = 0.71), but the impact of complications on survival was much greater for elderly patients (p = 0.002). LIMITATIONS: Data on outcome of other treatment modalities, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence for all of the treatment modalities in stage I to III rectal cancer declines significantly with increasing age. Future research should focus on strategies of treatment tailored to patient health status rather than chronological age.

Risk stratification for surgical outcomes in older colorectal cancer patients using ISAR-HP and G8 screening tools.

BACKGROUND: Older patients are at risk for adverse outcomes after surgical treatment of cancer. Identifying patients at risk could affect treatment decisions and prevent functional decline. Screening tools are available to select patients for Geriatric Assessment. Until now their predictive value for adverse outcomes in older colorectal cancer patients has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To study the predictive value of the Geriatric 8 (G8) and Identification of Seniors at Risk for Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) screening tools for adverse outcomes after elective colorectal surgery in patients older than 70years. Primary outcomes were 30-day complication rates, secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and six-month mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Multicentre cohort study from two hospitals in the Netherlands. Frail was defined as a G8 ≤14 and/or ISAR-HP ≥2. Odds ratio (OR) is given with 95% CI. RESULTS: Overall, 139 patients (52%) out of 268 patients were included; 32 patients (23%) were ISAR-HP-frail, 68 (50%) were G8-frail, 20 were frail on both screening tools. Median age was 77.7years. ISAR-HP frail patients were at risk for 30-day complications OR 2.4 (CI 1.1-5.4, p=0.03), readmission OR 3.4 (1.1-11.0), cardiopulmonary complications OR 5.9 (1.6-22.6), longer hospital stay (10.3 versus 8.9day) and six-months mortality OR 4.9 (1.1-23.4). When ISAR-HP and G8 were combined OR increased for readmission, 30-day and six-months mortality. G8 alone had no predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: ISAR-HP-frail patients are at risk for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. ISAR-HP combined with G8 has the strongest predictive value for complications and mortality. KEY POINTS: Patients screening frail on ISAR-HP are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality. Screening results of G8 alone was not predictive for postoperative outcomes. Predictive value increased when G8 and ISAR-HP were combined.

Identification of independent risk factors for flap failure: A retrospective analysis of 1530 free flaps for breast, head and neck and extremity reconstruction.

Reconstructive microsurgery is a powerful method of treating various complex defects. However, flap loss remains a possibility, leading to additional surgery, hospitalisation and costs. Consequently, it is important to know which factors lead to an increased risk of flap failure, so that measures can be undertaken to reduce this risk. Therefore, we analysed our results over a 20-year period to identify risk factors for flap failure after breast, head and neck and extremity reconstruction. The medical files of all patients treated between 1992 and 2012 were reviewed. Patient characteristics, surgical data and post-operative complications were scored, and independent risk factors for flap loss were identified. Reconstruction with a total of 1530 free flaps was performed in 1247 patients. Partial and total flap loss occurred in 5.5% and 4.4% of all free flaps, respectively. In all flaps, signs of compromised flap circulation were a risk factor for flap failure. More specifically, the risk factors for flap failure in breast reconstruction were previous radiotherapy, venous anastomosis revision, gluteal artery perforator (GAP) flap choice and post-operative bleeding. In head and neck reconstruction, pulmonary co-morbidity and anastomosis to the lingual vein or superficial temporal artery were risk factors, whereas a radial forearm flap reduced the risk. In extremity reconstruction, diabetes, prolonged anaesthesia time and post-operative wound infection were risk factors. Independent pre-, intra- and post-operative risk factors for flap failure after microvascular breast, head and neck and extremity reconstruction were identified. These results may be used to improve patient counselling and to adjust treatment algorithms to further reduce the chance of flap failure.