Clinical trial design in older adults with cancer—The need for new paradigms

Association of Selinexor Dose Reductions With Clinical Outcomes in the BOSTON Study

BACKGROUND

Dose modifications in response to adverse events (AEs) can maintain tumor response and improve therapy tolerability. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the efficacy and safety of reduced selinexor doses in the BOSTON trial (NCT03110562).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) in 195 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma randomized to once-weekly (QW) selinexor (100 mg), QW subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2), and twice-weekly dexamethasone (20 mg) were compared between patients with dose reductions and those without.

RESULTS

In total, 126 patients (65%) had selinexor dose reductions (median dose 71.4 mg/wk). In patients with dose reductions versus those without median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% CI 12.9-not evaluable [NE]) versus 9.2 months [95% CI 6.8-15.5]), overall response rate was 81.7% (95% CI 73.9-88.1%) versus 66.7% (95% CI 54.3-77.6%), ≥very good partial response was (51.6% [95% CI 42.5-60.6%] vs. 31.9% [95% CI 21.2-44.2]), median duration of response was not reached (95% CI 13.8-NE) versus 12.0 months (95% CI 8.3-NE), and time to next treatment was 22.6 months (95% CI 14.6-NE) versus 10.5 months (95% CI 6.3-18.2). Mean best change from baseline on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL scale was 10.0 ± 20.5 versus 4.0 ± 20.9. Duration-adjusted AE rates that were lower after selinexor dose reduction included thrombocytopenia (62.5% before vs. 47.6% after), nausea (31.6% vs. 7.3%), fatigue (28.1% vs. 9.9%), decreased appetite (21.5% vs. 6.4%), anemia (17.9% vs. 10.3%), and diarrhea (12.9% vs. 5.2%).

CONCLUSION

Appropriate dose reductions in response to AEs of the 100 mg selinexor starting dose in the BOSTON study were associated with improved efficacy, reduced AE rates and improved QoL.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Individualizing Dose Selection for Patients With Metastatic Cancer

PURPOSE

Treatment goals for patients with metastatic cancer include prolongation and maintenance of quality of life. Patients and oncologists have questioned the current paradigm of initial dose selection for systemic therapy; however, data on oncologists' dose selection strategies and beliefs are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic international survey of medical oncologists who treat patients with breast and/or gastrointestinal cancers. Survey questions addressed experiences with, and attitudes toward, dose reduction at initiation (DRI) of a new systemic therapy for patients with metastatic cancer.

RESULTS

Among 3,099 eligible oncologists, 367 responded (response rate 12%). Most (52%) reported using DRI at least 10% of the time to minimize toxicities. Gastrointestinal specialists were more likely to report DRI ≥ 10% of the time (72% v 50% of generalists and 51% of breast specialists, P < .005). Of those who dose reduced ≥ 10% of the time, 89% reported discussing potential tradeoffs between efficacy and toxicity with patients. Overall, 65% agreed it is acceptable to lower starting doses to reduce side effects even if it compromises efficacy; younger clinicians were more likely to agree (P < .005). There was strong support (89%) for future trials to determine optimal effective, rather than maximum tolerated, dose.

CONCLUSION

Oncology practice varies with regard to discussion and individualized selection of starting doses in the metastatic setting. This study demonstrates a need for consideration of shared decision making regarding initial dose selection and strong support among oncologists for clinical studies to define optimal dosing and best practices for individualizing care.

Enrolment of older adults with cancer in early phase clinical trials-an observational study on the experience in the north west of England

INTRODUCTION

older patients represent the majority of cancer patients but are under-represented in trials, particularly early phase clinical trials (EPCTs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

observational retrospective study of patients referred for EPCTs (January-December 2018) at a specialist cancer centre in the UK. The primary aim was to analyse the successful enrolment into EPCTs according to age (<65/65+). The secondary aims were to identify enrolment obstacles and the outcomes of enrolled patients. Patient data were analysed at: referral; in-clinic assessment and after successful enrolment. Among patients assessed in clinic, a sample was defined by randomly matching the older cohort with the younger cohort (1:1) by tumour type.

RESULTS

555 patients were referred for EPCTs with a median age of 60 years, of whom 471 were assessed in new patient clinics (38% were 65+). From those assessed, a randomly tumour-matched sample of 318 patients (159 per age cohort) was selected. Older patients had a significantly higher comorbidity score measured by ACE-27 (P < 0.0001), lived closer to the hospital (P = 0.045) and were referred at a later point in their cancer management (P = 0.002). There was no difference in suitability for EPCTs according to age with overall 84% deemed suitable. For patients successfully enrolled into EPCTs, there was no difference between age cohorts (20.1 vs. 22.6% for younger and older, respectively; P = 0.675) and no significant differences in their safety and efficacy outcomes.

DISCUSSION

older age did not affect the enrolment into EPCTs. However, the selected minority referred for EPCTs suggests a pre-selection upstream by primary oncologists.

Efficacy of Reduced-Intensity Chemotherapy With Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine on Quality of Life and Cancer Control Among Older and Frail Patients With Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: The GO2 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap.

Objective

The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty.

Interventions

There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival.

Results

A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment.

Trial Registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

Treatment Modalities and Survival in Older Adults with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Real Life

OBJECTIVES

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is increasingly treated with targeted therapies, but little is known about real-life mCRC treatment in older adults. The aims were to describe the real-life first-line treatment modalities in older adult mCRC patients, to identify factors associated with treatment modalities, and to evaluate survival with regard to treatment modalities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cohort of mCRC patients aged 65 years and older at diagnosis was identified between 2009 and 2013 using French national healthcare insurance system claims data. Treatment modalities were: treatment with one or more anticancer medication vs best supportive care and, among treated patients, treatment with targeted therapy vs conventional chemotherapy alone. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with treatment by anticancer medication and by targeted therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the independent effect of treatment modalities on overall survival while adjusting for baseline covariates identified with logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 503 patients were included with a median age of 78 years (54% were men). Of these, 299 (59%) were treated with anticancer medications. Among treated patients, 131 (44%) received targeted therapy. In multivariate analysis, age 75 years or older, renal failure, malnutrition, and five or more concomitant medications were associated with a lower likelihood of treatment with anticancer medications. Among treated patients, age 75 years or older, history of cancer, lymph node metastases, and a single metastatic site were associated with a lower likelihood of treatment with targeted therapy. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models found that treatment with any anticancer medication tended to be associated with a lower risk of death; treatment with targeted therapy was not significantly associated.

CONCLUSION

A more appropriate prescription of anticancer medications in the older adult will require the definition of more explicit criteria to avoid undertreatment. The real benefit of targeted therapies vs conventional chemotherapy alone needs to be confirmed in this population. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:913-919, 2019.

Optimising Clinical Trial Design in Older Cancer Patients

Cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, with over half of those aged over 65 years of age being diagnosed with cancer at some stage. Despite comprising a significant proportion of the patients that we see in clinical practice, there is a lack of representation of older patients in cancer clinical trials. This is mainly due to restrictive trial inclusion criteria that prevent older patients from participating. Also, trial endpoints, such as overall survival, may not represent the most important and most meaningful endpoints for older patients. The latter may place more significance on quality of life and other outcomes such as functional independence. Baseline assessment using Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, may provide a better framework for quantifying patient outcomes for varying degrees of fitness or frailty. This short communication makes the case for more age appropriate endpoints, such as quality of life, toxicity and functional independence, and that novel trial designs are necessary to inform evidence-based care of older cancer patients.

Assessment and management of radiotherapy induced toxicity in older patients

Radiotherapy is an attractive treatment option for older adults, especially where surgery and chemotherapy pose too great a risk. Radiotherapy toxicity may be divided into acute/early and late effects of treatment. The latter may have limited relevance to an older patient with competing causes of mortality due to significant comorbidity. Altered fractionation regimes have been employed in numerous sites, with no significant toxicity impact. These offer greater convenience in the elderly, especially those with limited social support or in active caregiving roles. As radiotherapy toxicity is site specific, it's important to assess baseline function via Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), and any pre-existing comorbidities that may influence toxicity. With modern radiotherapy technology and capabilities, these are less of an issue and radiotherapy is a very suitable treatment option for the older adult. When evaluating the literature on toxicity in older patients, it's important to recognise that older studies do not represent modern day radiotherapy techniques and capabilities. Advanced technology may simultaneously deliver enhanced target coverage and reduced toxicity. More research is required related to the predictive power of CGA in linking radiotherapy toxicity to frailty. What little evidence exists shows that CGA has a role in treatment of older patients with radiotherapy and that, in general, radiotherapy appears to be well tolerated in older adults. The purpose of this review is to provide a broad overview of the mechanisms of normal tissue reactions to radiotherapy and how radiation induced toxicity may affect older patients.

Patient-Centered Outcome Measures in Lung Cancer Trials

BACKGROUND

Scientific communities focusing on cancer research have urged for the development of trials that address patient-centered outcome measures instead of solely focusing on cancer as a disease-centered process. This is important for a patient with lung cancer because of the rapid course of disease and generally poor prognosis. We set out to determine the characteristics and study objectives of the current clinical trials in pulmonary malignancies.

METHODS

The United States National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry was searched on April 23rd 2015, for currently recruiting phase I, II, or III clinical trials in lung cancer. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website.

RESULTS

Of the 419 clinical trials included in this review, patient-centered outcome measures are investigated in a minority of the trials. Outcome measures as quality of life, functional capacity, and health care utilization are included in a small number of trials (20, 4, and 2 % respectively). Treatment completion is included in 1 % of the trials. Research goals are most frequently toxicity (78 %) and progression-free survival (76 %).

CONCLUSION

Patient-centered outcome measures are included in a minority of the currently recruiting clinical trials in pulmonary malignancies. If we do not investigate these outcome measures, it is not possible to increase our knowledge of the optimal treatment, as this should aim to optimize the patient's wellbeing as well as the course of disease. One option could be to incorporate combinations of patient- and disease-centered endpoints, for instance by using overall treatment utility or quality-adjusted outcome measures.

Effect of Pretreatment Renal Function on Treatment and Clinical Outcomes in the Adjuvant Treatment of Older Women With Breast Cancer: Alliance A171201, an Ancillary Study of CALGB/CTSU 49907

PURPOSE

CALGB 49907 showed the superiority of standard therapy, which included either cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin (AC) or cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil over single-agent capecitabine in the treatment of patients age ≥ 65 with early-stage breast cancer. The treatment allowed dosing adjustments of methotrexate and capecitabine for pretreatment renal function. The purpose of the current analysis was to assess the relationship between pretreatment renal function and five end points: toxicity, dose modification, therapy completion, relapse-free survival, and overall survival.

METHODS

Pretreatment renal function was defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) using the Cockcroft-Gault equation. Multivariable logistic and proportional hazards regression were used to model separately for each regimen the relationship between CrCl and the first three binary end points and the last two time-to-event end points, respectively, after adjusting for variables of prognostic importance.

RESULTS

Six hundred nineteen assessable patients were analyzed. The incidence of stage III (moderate) or stage IV (severe) renal dysfunction was 72%, 64%, and 75% for treatment with cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil, AC, and capecitabine, respectively. There was no relationship for any regimen between pretreatment renal function and the five end points. For AC, as CrCl increased, the odds of nonhematologic toxicity decreased (P = .008), whereas for capecitabine, as CrCl increased, the odds of experiencing toxicity of any type also increased (P = .035). Patients with renal insufficiency who received dose modifications were not at increased risk for complications compared with those who did not have renal insufficiency and received a full dose.

CONCLUSION

Excluding from clinical trials patients with renal insufficiency but good performance status on the basis of concern of excessive hematologic toxicity or poor outcomes may not be justified with appropriate dosing modifications. Results should be considered in the design of clinical trials for older patients.

The Role of the Advanced Practice Nurse in Geriatric Oncology Care

OBJECTIVES

To describe how the Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) is uniquely suited to meet the needs of older adults throughout the continuum of cancer, to explore the progress that APNs have made in gero-oncology care, and make suggestions for future directions.

DATA SOURCE

Google Scholar, PubMed, and CINAHL. Search terms included: "gero-oncology," "geriatric oncology," "Advanced Practice Nurse," "Nurse Practitioner," "older adult," "elderly," and "cancer."

CONCLUSION

Over the last decade, APNs have made advances in caring for older adults with cancer by playing a role in prevention, screening, and diagnosis; through evidence-based gero-oncology care during cancer treatment; and in designing tailored survivorship care models. APNs must combat ageism in treatment choice for older adults, standardize comprehensive geriatric assessments, and focus on providing person-centered care, specifically during care transitions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

APNs are well-positioned to help understand the complex relationship between risk factors, geriatric syndromes, and frailty and translate research into practice. Palliative care must expand beyond specialty providers and shift toward APNs with a focus on early advanced care planning. Finally, APNs should continue to establish multidisciplinary survivorship models across care settings, with a focus on primary care.

Geriatric oncology and clinical trials

The overall aging of the population has resulted in a marked increase in the number of older patients with cancer. These patients have specific needs that are different from those of the younger population. Cancer clinical trials have included an inadequate number of older patients, resulting in lack of meaningful data to make evidence-based decisions for this population. As a result, clinicians have to extrapolate data from younger and healthier patients. There are a number of reasons for this under-representation, including a design and implementation structure for clinical trials that does not meet the needs of this vulnerable population. Issues that need to be addressed include alterations in eligibility criteria to make them less restrictive by accounting for multiple comorbidities and prior malignancy and endpoints specific for older patients, such as quality of life, changes in function, and maintenance of independence. Other issues specific to the older population include alterations in dose-limiting toxicity, measures of treatment-related toxicity, and polypharmacy. Phase I trials can be appropriate for older patients but need to be tailored to their needs. Some form of geriatric assessment needs to be included to help with eligibility, assessment, and stratification. For future clinical trials to be truly meaningful they need to appropriately assess and incorporate the needs of the majority of the cancer population.

Targeted therapy in older patients with solid tumors

The introduction of targeted therapy has ushered in the era of personalized medicine in cancer therapy. The increased understanding of tumor heterogeneity has led to the determination of specific targets that can be exploited in treatment. This review highlights approved drugs in different therapeutic classes, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, drugs targeted to the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, BRAF-mutation targeted drugs, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. There have not been elderly patient-specific trials of these therapies. Most of the data are extrapolated from larger trials in which older patients generally were a fraction of the participants. Therapeutic recommendations are made on the basis of this analysis with the recognition that the older clinical trial participants may not be representative of patients seen in daily practice. Patient selection and geriatric evaluation are critical for appropriate drug selection, dosing, and monitoring. With care, these therapies are a major step forward in the safe and effective treatment of older patients with cancer.

A review of the management of elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

Most patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are elderly but evidence to guide appropriate treatment decisions for this age group is generally scant. Careful evaluation of the elderly should be undertaken to ensure that treatment appropriate for the stage of the tumour is guided by patient characteristics and not by age. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) remains the preferred option, but briefer tools may be appropriate to select patients for further evaluation. The predicted outcome should be used to guide management decisions together with a reappraisal of polypharmacy. Patient expectations should also be taken into account. Management recommendations are generally similar to those of general guidelines for the NSCLC population, although the risks of surgery and toxicity of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are often increased in the elderly compared with younger patients; therefore, patients should be closely scrutinised and subjected to a CGA to ensure suitability of the planned treatment. If surgery is indicated, then lobectomy is generally the preferred option, although limited resection may be more feasible for some. Radiotherapy with curative intent is an alternative, with stereotactic body radiotherapy the most likely preferred modality. Adjuvant chemotherapy is also an appropriate approach, whereas adjuvant radiotherapy is generally not recommended. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy should be considered for elderly patients with inoperable locally advanced disease and chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Efforts should also be made to increase participation of elderly patients with NSCLC in clinical trials, thereby enhancing evidence-based treatment decisions for this majority group. This will require overcoming barriers relating to trial design and to physician and patient awareness and attitudes.

On-going clinical trials for elderly patients with a hematological malignancy: are we addressing the right end points?

BACKGROUND

Cancer societies and research cooperative groups worldwide have urged for the development of cancer trials that will address those outcome measures that are most relevant to older patients. We set out to determine the characteristics and study objectives of current clinical trials in hematological patients.

METHOD

The United States National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry was searched on 1 July 2013, for currently recruiting phase I, II or III clinical trials in hematological malignancies. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website.

RESULTS

In the 1207 clinical trials included in this overview, patient-centered outcome measures such as quality of life, health care utilization and functional capacity were only incorporated in a small number of trials (8%, 4% and 0.7% of trials, respectively). Even in trials developed exclusively for older patients, the primary focus lies on standard end points such as toxicity, efficacy and survival, while patient-centered outcome measures are included in less than one-fifth of studies.

CONCLUSION

Currently on-going clinical trials in hematological malignancies are unlikely to significantly improve our knowledge of the optimal treatment of older patients as those outcome measures that are of primary importance to this patient population are still included in only a minority of studies. As a scientific community, we cannot continue to simply acknowledge this issue, but must all participate in taking the necessary steps to enable the delivery of evidence-based, tailor-made and patient-focused cancer care to our rapidly growing elderly patient population.

End Points and Trial Design in Geriatric Oncology Research: A Joint European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology–International Society of Geriatric Oncology Position Article

Selecting the most appropriate end points for clinical trials is important to assess the value of new treatment strategies. Well-established end points for clinical research exist in oncology but may not be as relevant to the older cancer population because of competing risks of death and potentially increased impact of therapy on global functioning and quality of life. This article discusses specific clinical end points and their advantages and disadvantages for older individuals.

Randomized or single-arm phase II trials can provide insight into the range of efficacy and toxicity in older populations but ideally need to be confirmed in phase III trials, which are unfortunately often hindered by the severe heterogeneity of the older cancer population, difficulties with selection bias depending on inclusion criteria, physician perception, and barriers in willingness to participate. All clinical trials in oncology should be without an upper age limit to allow entry of eligible older adults. In settings where so-called standard therapy is not feasible, specific trials for older patients with cancer might be required, integrating meaningful measures of outcome. Not all questions can be answered in randomized clinical trials, and large observational cohort studies or registries within the community setting should be established (preferably in parallel to randomized trials) so that treatment patterns across different settings can be compared with impact on outcome. Obligatory integration of a comparable form of geriatric assessment is recommended in future studies, and regulatory organizations such as the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration should require adequate collection of data on efficacy and toxicity of new drugs in fit and frail elderly subpopulations.

International validation of the EORTC QLQ-ELD14 questionnaire for assessment of health-related quality of life elderly patients with cancer

Background:

Older people represent the majority of cancer patients but their specific needs are often ignored in the development of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-ELD15 was developed to supplement the EORTC's core questionnaire, the QLQ-C30, for measuring HRQOL in patients aged >70 years in oncology studies.

Methods:

Patients (n=518) from 10 countries completed the QLQ-C30, QLQ-ELD15 and a debriefing interview. Eighty two clinically stable patients repeated the questionnaires 1 week later (test–retest analysis) and 107 others, with an expected change in clinical status, repeated the questionnaires 3 months later (response to change analysis, RCA).

Results:

Information from the debriefing interview, factor analysis and item response theory analysis resulted in the removal of one item (QLQ-ELD15→QLQ-ELD14) and revision of the proposed scale structure to five scales (mobility, worries about others, future worries, maintaining purpose and illness burden) and two single items (joint stiffness and family support). Convergent validity was good. In known-group comparisons, the QLQ-ELD14 differentiated between patients with different disease stage, treatment intention, number of comorbidities, performance status and geriatric screening scores. Test–retest and RCA analyses were equivocal.

Conclusion:

The QLQ-ELD14 is a validated HRQOL questionnaire for cancer patients aged ⩾70 years. Changes in elderly patients' self-reported HRQOL may be related to both cancer evolution and non-clinical events.

Barriers to inclusion of older adults in randomised controlled clinical trials on Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The majority of Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients are over 65 years. Management is challenging, especially for aggressive lymphoma, and appropriate assessment of efficacy and tolerance specific to this population is crucial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the representation of older patients in randomised controlled trials (RCT) in NHL, examining whether trial eligibility criteria prevent participation, and whether appropriate primary endpoints such as toxicity, quality of life, or geriatric assessment scores are used.

METHODS

We searched Medline for articles published in English or French between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2011 reporting on phase II/III RCT evaluating therapeutic strategies for NHL. Articles were categorised as including or excluding (directly or indirectly) older adults, and features of RCT that included or excluded older patients are compared.

RESULTS

We identified 87 relevant RCT: 9 (10.3%) focussed exclusively on patients >65 years, 22 (25.3%) directly excluded patients >65 years, 47 (54.0%) indirectly excluded older adults through selective inclusion criteria (ECOG status, liver or kidney function, and comorbidities), and 9 (10.3%) did not directly or indirectly exclude patients >65 years (although two excluded patients >70 years). Proportions of older patients included do not reflect incidence. Trials including older adults were published in journals with lower impact factors and few RCT used appropriate endpoints for older adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults are poorly represented in NHL RCT both due to direct age-based exclusion and restrictive inclusion criteria. This situation needs rapid correction to better represent older patients and thus improve cancer management in this highly prevalent population.

Geriatric oncology research to improve clinical care

Cancer incidence increases with advanced age. The Cancer and Aging Research Group, in partnership with the National Institute on Aging and NCI, have summarized the gaps in knowledge in geriatric oncology and made recommendations to close these gaps. One recommendation was that the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) should be incorporated within geriatric oncology research. Information from the CGA can be used to stratify patients into risk categories to better predict their tolerance of cancer treatment, and to follow functional consequences from treatment. Other recommendations were to design trials for older adults with study end points that address the needs of the older and/or vulnerable adult with cancer and to build a better infrastructure to accommodate the needs of older adults to improve their representation in trials. We use a case-based approach to highlight gaps in knowledge regarding the care of older adults with cancer, discuss our current state of knowledge of best practice patterns, and identify opportunities for research in geriatric oncology. More evidence regarding the treatment of older patients with cancer is urgently needed.