2
|
Helsel BC, Kemper KA, Williams JE, Truong K, Van Puymbroeck M. Multidimensional risk score to stratify community-dwelling older adults by future fall risk using the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) framework. Inj Prev 2021; 27:461-466. [PMID: 33443031 PMCID: PMC9940266 DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2020-044014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2020] [Revised: 11/17/2020] [Accepted: 11/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) screening algorithm aligns with current fall prevention guidelines and is easy to administer within clinical practice. However, the stratification into low, moderate and high risk categories limits the meaningful interpretation of the fall-related risk factors. METHODS Baseline measures from a modified STEADI were used to predict self-reported falls over 4 years in 3170 respondents who participated in the 2011-2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study. A point method was then applied to find coefficient-based integers and 4-year fall risk estimates from the predictive model. Sensitivity and specificity estimates from the point method and the combined moderate and high fall risk STEADI categories were compared. RESULTS There were 886 (27.95%) and 387 (12.21%) respondents who were classified as moderate and high risk, respectively, when applying the stratification method. Falls in the past year (OR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.61 to 2.89), multiple falls (OR: 2.94; 95% CI: 1.89 to 4.55) and a fear of falling (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.16) were among the significant predictors of 4-year falls in older adults. The point method revealed integers that ranged from 0 (risk: 27.21%) to 44 (risk: 99.71%) and a score of 10 points had comparable discriminatory capacity to the combined moderate and high STEADI categories. CONCLUSION Coefficient-based integers and their risk estimates can provide an alternative interpretation of a predictive model that may be useful in determining fall risk within a clinical setting, tracking changes longitudinally and defining the effectiveness of an intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian C Helsel
- Internal Medicine, Division of Physical Activity and Weight Management, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| | - Karen A Kemper
- Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
| | - Joel E Williams
- Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
| | - Khoa Truong
- Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
| | - Marieke Van Puymbroeck
- Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Uemura H, Matsushima H, Kobayashi K, Mizusawa H, Nishimatsu H, Fizazi K, Smith M, Shore N, Tammela T, Tabata KI, Matsubara N, Iinuma M, Uemura H, Oya M, Momma T, Kawakita M, Fukasawa S, Kobayashi T, Kuss I, Le Berre MA, Snapir A, Sarapohja T, Suzuki K. Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in Japanese patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a sub-group analysis of the phase III ARAMIS trial. Int J Clin Oncol 2020; 26:578-590. [PMID: 33226524 PMCID: PMC7895789 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-020-01824-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2020] [Accepted: 10/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Background Darolutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, has been approved for treating nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), based on significant improvements in metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the ARAMIS clinical trial. Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in Japanese patients are reported here. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 1509 patients with nmCRPC and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤ 10 months were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or matched placebo while continuing androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was MFS. Results In Japan, 95 patients were enrolled and randomized to darolutamide (n = 62) or placebo (n = 33). At the primary analysis (cut-off date: September 3, 2018), after 20 primary end-point events had occurred, median MFS was not reached with darolutamide vs. 18.2 months with placebo (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.70). Median OS was not reached due to limited numbers of events in both groups but favored darolutamide in the Japanese subgroup. Time to pain progression, time to PSA progression, and PSA response also favored darolutamide. Among Japanese patients randomized to darolutamide vs. placebo, incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 85.5 vs. 63.6%, and incidences of treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs were 8.1 vs. 6.1%. Conclusions Efficacy outcomes favored darolutamide in Japanese patients with nmCRPC, supporting the clinical benefit of darolutamide in this patient population. Darolutamide was well tolerated; however, due to the small sample size, it is impossible to conclude with certainty whether differences in the safety profile exist between Japanese and overall ARAMIS populations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10147-020-01824-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiroji Uemura
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Yokohama City University Medical Center, 4-57 Urafune-cho, Minami-ku, Yokohama, 232-0024, Japan.
| | - Hisashi Matsushima
- Department of Urology, Tokyo Metropolitan Police Hospital, 4-22-1 Nakano, Nakano-ku, 164-8541, Japan
| | - Kazuki Kobayashi
- Department of Urology, Yokosuka Kyosai Hospital, 1-16 Yonegahamadori, Yokosuka, 238-8558, Japan
| | - Hiroya Mizusawa
- Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization, Shinshu Ueda Medical Center, 1-27-21 Midorigaoka, Ueda, 386-8610, Japan
| | - Hiroaki Nishimatsu
- Department of Urology, The Fraternity Memorial Hospital, 2-1-11 Yokoami, Sumida-ku, 130-8587, Japan
| | - Karim Fizazi
- Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 Rue Camille Desmoulins, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France
| | - Matthew Smith
- Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
| | - Neal Shore
- Carolina Urologic Research Center, 823 82nd Parkway, Myrtle Beach, SC, 29572, USA
| | - Teuvo Tammela
- Tampere University Hospital, Urologian poliklinikka, PL 2000, Teiskontie 35, 33521, Tampere, Finland
| | - Ken-Ichi Tabata
- Department of Urology, Kitasato University Hospital, 1-15-1 Kitazato Minami-ku, Sagamihara, 252-0375, Japan
| | - Nobuaki Matsubara
- Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Masahiro Iinuma
- Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization, Mito Medical Center, 280 Sakuranosato Ibarakimachi, Higashiibaraki, 311-3193, Japan
| | - Hirotsugu Uemura
- Department of Urology, Kindai University, 377-2, Onohigashi, Osakasayama, 589-8511, Japan
| | - Mototsugu Oya
- Department of Urology, Keio University, 35 Shinano-machi, Shinjuku-ku, 160-8582, Japan
| | - Tetsuo Momma
- Department of Urology, National Hospital Organization, Saitama National Hospital, 2-1 Suwa, Wako, 351-0102, Japan
| | - Mutsushi Kawakita
- Department of Urology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, 2-1-1 Minatojimaminamimachi Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0047, Japan
| | - Satoshi Fukasawa
- Division of Urology, Chiba Cancer Center, 666-2, Nitona-cho, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8717, Japan
| | - Tadahiro Kobayashi
- Department of Urology, Fukui Prefectural Hospital, 2-8-1 Yotsui, Fukui, 910-8526, Japan
| | - Iris Kuss
- Clinical Statistics, Bayer AG, Building P300, B342, 13342, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Amir Snapir
- Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Orionintie 1, P.O. Box 65, FI-02101, Espoo, Finland.,PCI Biotech, Ullernchausseen 64, 0379, Oslo, Norway
| | - Toni Sarapohja
- Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Orionintie 1, P.O. Box 65, FI-02101, Espoo, Finland
| | - Kazuhiro Suzuki
- Department of Urology, Gunma University, 3-39-15 Showa-machi, Maebashi, 371-8511, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Shin HB, Park HS, Yoo JE, Han K, Park SH, Shin DW, Park J. Risk of fracture incidence in prostate cancer survivors: a nationwide cohort study in South Korea. Arch Osteoporos 2020; 15:110. [PMID: 32700143 DOI: 10.1007/s11657-020-00785-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2020] [Accepted: 07/07/2020] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE We analyzed the risk of fracture in prostate cancer (PC) survivors compared to that in the general population in South Korea and according to the primary treatment. METHODS From 2007 to 2013, a total of 41,733 PC survivors newly diagnosed with PC in South Korea were identified and matched to non-cancer controls. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to determine the relative risk of fracture. RESULTS Compared to the matched controls, PC survivors had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-1.45). Compared to the matched controls, the active surveillance/watchful waiting and radiotherapy group showed a similar risk of fracture (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.98-1.20, and aHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.63-1.73, respectively). PC survivors who underwent surgery showed a lower risk of fracture (aHR 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96), while those who underwent surgery + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (aHR 1.41; 95% CI 1.26-1.57), radiotherapy + ADT (aHR 1.86; 95% CI 1.50-2.32), and only ADT (aHR 1.92; 95% CI 1.82-2.02) showed a higher risk of fracture than the control group. CONCLUSION The risk of fracture differed according to the primary treatment method for PC; survivors who underwent surgery had a lower risk of fracture compared to that of the general population. However, PC survivors treated with ADT showed a higher risk of fracture than the other PC treatment groups or the general population. Therefore, more attention and preventive bone care are required for PC survivors who receive ADT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyun Bin Shin
- Department of Urology, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, 95, Dunsanseoro, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 35233, South Korea
| | - Hyun Sik Park
- Department of Urology, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, 95, Dunsanseoro, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 35233, South Korea
| | - Jung Eun Yoo
- Department of Family Medicine, Healthcare System Ganagnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Kyungdo Han
- Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Soongsil University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Sang Hyun Park
- Department of Medical Statistics, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Dong Wook Shin
- Department of Family Medicine, Supportive Care Center, Samsung Medical Center, 81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
- Department of Clinical Research Design & Evaluation, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
| | - Jinsung Park
- Department of Urology, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, 95, Dunsanseoro, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 35233, South Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Managing an Older Adult with Cancer: Considerations for Radiation Oncologists. BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2017; 2017:1695101. [PMID: 29387715 PMCID: PMC5745659 DOI: 10.1155/2017/1695101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2017] [Revised: 10/03/2017] [Accepted: 11/16/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Older adults with cancer present a unique set of management complexities for oncologists and radiation oncologists. Prognosis and resilience to cancer treatments are notably dependent on the presence or risk of "geriatric syndromes," in addition to cancer stage and histology. Recognition, proper evaluation, and management of these conditions in conjunction with management of the cancer itself are critical and can be accomplished by utilization of various geriatric assessment tools. Here we review principles of the geriatric assessment, common geriatric syndromes, and application of these concepts to multidisciplinary oncologic treatment. Older patients may experience toxicities related to treatments that impact treatment effectiveness, quality of life, treatment-related mortality, and treatment compliance. Treatment-related burdens from radiotherapy are increasingly important considerations and include procedural demands, travel, costs, and temporary or permanent loss of functional independence. An overall approach to delivering radiotherapy to an older cancer patient requires a comprehensive assessment of both physical and nonphysical factors that may impact treatment outcome. Patient and family-centered communication is also an important part of developing a shared understanding of illness and reasonable expectations of treatment.
Collapse
|