Predicting Chemotherapy Toxicity and Death in Older Adults with Colon Cancer: Results of MOST Study.

PURPOSE: Older patients with colon cancer (CC) are vulnerable to chemotherapy toxicity and death. Establishing simple scores specific for patients with CC to predict severe chemotoxicity or early death is needed to select the best treatment strategy. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: This prospective multicenter study included patients aged ≥70 years with CC receiving adjuvant or first-line metastatic chemotherapy. Frailty markers (nutrition, physical activity, energy, mobility, strength), comprehensive geriatric assessment (functional status, comorbidities, falls, nutrition, cognition, and depression), and usual laboratory parameters were collected. Logistic or Cox regression was used to examine at 500 days the association between frailty markers, comprehensive geriatric assessment, laboratory parameters, and grade 3-4 toxicity or death. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients (median age, 79.0 years) received adjuvant (37.1%) or metastatic (62.9%) chemotherapy. During the first 500 days, grade 3-4 toxicity occurred in 49.5%, and 30% died. The predictive model for grade 3-4 toxicity combined (polychemotherapy × 3) + (hypoalbuminemia <32 g/L × 2) + (abnormal grip strength × 1.5) + C-reactive protein >11 mg/L + Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), cutoff score >3. The predictive model for death combined (metastasis × 5) + (age × 2) + alkaline phosphatase >100 IU/mL + sex (female) + abnormal grip strength + ECOG-PS, cutoff score >6. For chemotoxicity prediction, sensitivity was 81.6% and specificity 71.4%. For death prediction, sensitivity was 89.7% and specificity was 83.6%. CONCLUSION: These simple and efficient "ColonPrediscores" will help to better identify older patients with CC with increased risk of chemotherapy-related toxicity and/or death. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The two scores assessed in this study, called "ColonPrediscores", offer a major advantage in that they do not need a previous complete geriatric assessment, which makes them an easy-to-use tool in oncologic settings.

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.

PREDOMOS study, impact of a social intervention program for socially isolated elderly cancer patients: update to the study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Social isolation potentiates the risk of death by cancer in the older cancer patient population. The PREDOMOS study investigates the impact of establishing a Program of Social intervention associated with techniques of Domotic and Remote assistance on the improvement of quality of life of older isolated patients, treated for locally advanced or metastatic cancer. This paper updates the pilot trial protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: The original protocol was published in Trials, accessible at https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-017-1894-7 . This update reports on the eligibility criteria expansion and on the adjunction of a cost-utility analysis. We widened the eligible population to patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer including malignant hemopathies (except acute myeloid leukemia) and to patients in the first and second lines of oncologic treatment. We restricted the inclusion to patients with a Mini Mental State Examination score strictly over 24. In addition to the secondary outcomes outlined in the protocol, a medico-economic analysis has been added to evaluate both the health benefits and costs of the two strategies and calculate the incremental cost-utility ratio of the innovative program assessed, compared to the standard practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02829762 . Registered on 29 June 2016.

PREDOMOS study, impact of a social intervention program for socially isolated elderly cancer patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence and social isolation increase along with advanced age, and social isolation potentiates the relative risk of death by cancer. Once spotted, social isolation can be averted with the intervention of a multidisciplinary team. Techniques of automation and remote assistance have already demonstrated their positive impact on falls prevention and quality of life (QoL), though little is known about their impact on socially isolated elderly patients supported for cancer. The primary objective of the PREDOMOS study is to evaluate the impact of establishing a Program of Social intervention associated with techniques of Domotic and Remote assistance (PS-DR) on the improvement of QoL of elderly isolated patients, treated for locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The secondary objectives include treatment failure, tolerance, survival, and autonomy. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label, two-parallel group study. The setting is 10 French oncogeriatric centers. Inclusion criteria are patients aged at least 70 years with a social isolation risk and a histological diagnosis of cancer, locally advanced or metastatic disease. The groups are (1) the control group, receiving usual care; (2) the experimental group, receiving usual care associating with monthly social assistance, domotic, and remote assistance. Participants are randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio. Evaluation times involve inclusion (randomization) and follow-up (12 months). The primary endpoint is QoL at 3 months (via European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30); secondary endpoints are social isolation, time to treatment failure, toxicity, dose response-intensity, survival, autonomy, and QoL at 6 months. For the sample size, 320 individuals are required to obtain 90% power to detect a 10-point difference (standard deviation 25) in QoL score between the two groups (20% loss to follow-up patients expected). DISCUSSION: The randomized controlled design is the most appropriate design to demonstrate the efficacy of a new experimental strategy (Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group classification). National and international recommendations could be updated based on the findings of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02829762 . Registered on 29 June 2016.