Modeling individual and relative accuracy of screening tools in geriatric oncology

Hand grip strength, short physical performance battery, and gait speed: key tools for function in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

This study aimed to determine which performance assessment tools included in Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) are the most sensitive for the functional approach in the initial evaluation and during the therapy of old adults diagnosed with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL). We prospectively recruited 31 patients aged 70 years or older presenting for an initial consultation in the Hematology Clinic of a tertiary hospital. We implemented an updated physical performance evaluation as part of CGA at baseline and during treatment. Baseline characteristics of the sample were compared according to age, Geriatric 8 (G8), frailty, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and sarcopenia measured by hand grip strength (HGS). Functional changes were monitored during the treatment period using HGS, gait speed (GS) and SPPB. The mean age was 79.0 (5.5) years and 51.6% of the sample was frail; 65,5% were treated with standard chemotherapy and 35,5% with a therapeutic regimen with attenuated doses. All the assessment tools included in CGA found functional differences at baseline when the sample was stratified and compared according to frailty, sarcopenia, and SPPB, but not according to G8 score and age. Only SPPB was able to detect functional differences between groups stratified by age at baseline. GS was the only score that identified clinically significant functional changes during the treatment. In conclusion, HGS and SPPB are appropriate performance scores to complete the functional approach in the initial hematologic evaluation, and GS is a promising option to detect functional decline during therapy in old adults with DLBCL.

A Two-Step Frailty Assessment Strategy in Older Patients With Solid Tumors: A Decision Curve Analysis

PURPOSE

The intended clinical value of frailty screening is to identify unfit patients needing geriatric assessment (GA) and to prevent unnecessary GA in fit patients. These hypotheses rely on the sensitivity and specificity of screening tests, but they have not been verified.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of outpatients age ≥ 70 years with prostate, breast, colorectal, or lung cancer included in the ELCAPA cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02884375) between February 2007 and December 2019. The diagnostic accuracy of the G8 Geriatric Screening Tool (G8) and modified G8 scores for identifying unfit patients was determined on the basis of GA results. We used decision curve analysis to calculate the benefit of frailty screening for detecting unfit patients and avoiding unnecessary GA in fit patients across different threshold probabilities.

RESULTS

We included 1,648 patients (median age, 81 years), and 1,428 (87%) were unfit. The sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 85% (95% CI, 84 to 87) and 59% (95% CI, 57 to 61) for G8, and 86% (95% CI, 84 to 87) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 63) for the modified G8 score. For decision curve analysis, the net benefit (NB) for identifying unfit patients were 0.72 for G8, 0.72 for the modified G8, and 0.82 for GA at a threshold probability of 0.25. At a threshold probability of 0.33, the NBs were 0.71, 0.72, and 0.80, respectively. At a threshold probability of 0.5, the NBs were 0.68, 0.69, and 0.73, respectively. No screening tool reduced unnecessary GA in fit patients at predefined threshold probabilities.

CONCLUSION

Although frailty screening tests showed good diagnostic accuracy, screening showed no clinical benefits over the GA-for-all strategy. NB approaches, in addition to diagnostic accuracy, are necessary to assess the clinical value of tests.

The VES-13 and G-8 tools as predictors of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients: A single-center study

Background

Adjuvant hormone treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer is mainly based on aromatase inhibitors. Adverse events associated with such class of drugs are particularly severe in elderly patients. Therefore, we investigated the possibility of ab initio predict which elderly patients could encounter toxicity.

Methods

In light of national and international oncological guidelines recommending the use of screening tests for multidimensional geriatric assessment in elderly patients aged ≥70 years and eligible for active cancer treatment, we assessed whether the Vulnerable Elder Survey (VES)-13 and the Geriatric (G)-8 could be predictors of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors. Seventy-seven consecutive patients aged ≥70 diagnosed with non-metastatic hormone-responsive breast cancer and therefore eligible for adjuvant hormone therapy with aromatase inhibitors, were screened with the VES-13 and the G-8, and underwent a six-monthly clinical and instrumental follow-up in our medical oncology unit, from September 2016 to March 2019 (30 months). Said patients were identified as vulnerable (VES-13 score ≥3 or G-8 score ≤14) and fit (VES-13 score <3 or G-8 score >14). The likelihood of experiencing toxicity is greater among vulnerable patients.

Results

The correlation between the VES-13 or the G-8 tools and the presence of adverse events is equal to 85.7% (p = 0.03). The VES-13 demonstrated 76.9% sensitivity, 90.2% specificity, 80.0% positive predictive value, 88.5% negative predictive value. The G-8 demonstrated 79.2% sensitivity, 88.7% specificity, 76% positive predictive value, 90.4% negative predictive value.

Conclusion

The VES-13 and the G-8 tools could be valuable predictors of the onset of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients aged ≥70.

Screening Tools for Identifying Older Adults With Cancer Who May Benefit From a Geriatric Assessment: A Systematic Review

Importance

Older adults with cancer are at risk of overtreatment or undertreatment when decision-making is based solely on chronological age. Although a geriatric assessment is recommended to inform care, the time and expertise required limit its feasibility for all patients. Screening tools offer the potential to identify those who will benefit most from a geriatric assessment. Consensus about the optimal tool to use is lacking.

Objective

To appraise the evidence on screening tools used for older adults with cancer and identify an optimal screening tool for older adults with cancer who may benefit from geriatric assessment.

Evidence Review

Systematic review of 4 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], and PubMed) with narrative synthesis from January 1, 2000, to March 14, 2019. Studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy and use of validated screening tools to identify older adults with cancer who need a geriatric assessment were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed from March 14, 2019, to March 23, 2020.

Findings

Seventeen unique studies were included, reporting on the use of 12 screening tools. Most studies were prospective cohort studies (n = 11) with only 1 randomized clinical trial. Not all studies reported time taken to administer the screening tools. The Geriatric-8 (G8) (n = 12) and the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) (n = 9) were the most frequently evaluated screening tools. The G8 scored better in sensitivity and the VES-13 in specificity. Other screening tools evaluated include the Groningen Frailty Index, abbreviated comprehensive geriatric assessment, and Physical Performance Test in 2 studies each. All other screening tools were evaluated in 1 study each.

Conclusions and Relevance

To date, the G8 and VES-13 have the most evidence to recommend their use to inform the need for geriatric assessment. When choosing a screening tool, clinicians will need to weigh the tradeoffs between sensitivity and specificity. Future research needs to further validate or improve current screening tools and explore other factors that can influence their use, such as ease of use and resourcing.

How an Oncologist's Intuition Compares to a Geriatric Assessment

BACKGROUND

A geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended before treating older cancer patients. The goal of this study was to investigate if the additional information from a GA and discussion by a multidisciplinary board (MB) change the treatment recommendations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Older cancer patients (n = 421) were prospectively assessed by an oncologist for eligibility for chemotherapy. A multidimensional GA was performed and a discussion about each patient was held by a MB including a geriatrician. Differences between the judgment made by the oncologist, that of the MB, and the Balducci classification were examined. A statistical model of the MB decision-making process was established and evaluated.

RESULTS

The treating oncologist and the MB judged 12 and 15% of the patients as frail, 41 and 38% as vulnerable, and 46 and 47% as fit. Overall, 83% agreement was observed. Based on the Balducci classification, 55% of the patients were frail, 30% were vulnerable, and 15% were fit. Only 34% of congruency with the oncologist's judgment was observed. In a 2-stage logistics model, activities of daily living and the Mini-Mental-State Examination (MMSE) proved most suitable for identifying frail patients. Tinetti's test, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, living alone, the MMSE, and the Mini-Nutritional Assessment fitted best to distinguish between vulnerable and fit.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding the decision of systemic treatment for older patients, the judgment by an experienced oncologist was comparable to that of an MB and both were significantly different from the Balducci classification. For some patients, the additional discussion of GA data in an MB may change treatment decisions.

Preoperative Frailty Evaluation: A Promising Risk-stratification Tool in Older Adults Undergoing General Surgery

PURPOSE

General surgical procedures are among the most commonly performed operations in the United States. Despite advances in surgical and anesthetic techniques and perioperative care, complications after general surgery in older adults remain a significant cause of increased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Frailty, a geriatric syndrome characterized by multisystem physiologic decline and increased vulnerability to stressors and adverse clinical outcomes, has emerged as a plausible predictor of adverse outcomes after surgery in older patients. Thus, the goal of this topical review is to evaluate the evidence on the association between preoperative frailty and clinical outcomes after general surgery and whether frailty evaluation may have a role in surgical risk-stratification in vulnerable older patients.

METHODS

A PubMed database search was conducted between September and October 2018 to identify relevant studies evaluating the association between frailty and clinical outcomes after general surgery. Key words (frailty and surgery) and Medical Subject Heading term (general surgery) were used, and specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied.

FINDINGS

The available evidence from meta-analyses and cohort studies suggest that preoperative frailty is significantly associated with adverse clinical outcomes after emergent or nonemergent general surgery in older patients. Although these studies are limited by a high degree of heterogeneity of frailty assessments, types of surgery, and primary outcomes, baseline frailty appears to increase risk of postoperative complications and morbidity, hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, and long-term mortality after general surgical procedures in older adults.

IMPLICATIONS

Evidence supports the further development of preoperative frailty evaluation as a risk-stratification tool in older adults undergoing general surgery. Research is urgently needed to quantify and differentiate the predictive ability of validated frailty instruments in the context of different general surgical procedures and medical acuity and in conjunction with existing surgical risk indices widely used in clinical practice. Practical applicability of frailty instrument as well as geriatrics-centered outcomes need to be incorporated in future studies in this line of research. Furthermore, clinical care pathways that integrate frailty assessment, geriatric medicine focused perioperative and postoperative management, and patient-centered interdisciplinary care models should be investigated as a comprehensive intervention approach in older adults undergoing general surgery. Finally, early implementation of palliative care should occur at the outset of hospital encounter in frail older patients who present with indications for emergent general surgery.

The OncoAge Consortium: Linking Aging and Oncology from Bench to Bedside and Back Again

It is generally accepted that carcinogenesis and aging are two biological processes, which are known to be associated. Notably, the frequency of certain cancers (including lung cancer), increases significantly with the age of patients and there is now a wealth of data showing that multiple mechanisms leading to malignant transformation and to aging are interconnected, defining the so-called common biology of aging and cancer. OncoAge, a consortium launched in 2015, brings together the multidisciplinary expertise of leading public hospital services and academic laboratories to foster the transfer of scientific knowledge rapidly acquired in the fields of cancer biology and aging into innovative medical practice and silver economy development. This is achieved through the development of shared technical platforms (for research on genome stability, (epi)genetics, biobanking, immunology, metabolism, and artificial intelligence), clinical research projects, clinical trials, and education. OncoAge focuses mainly on two pilot pathologies, which benefit from the expertise of several members, namely lung and head and neck cancers. This review outlines the broad strategic directions and key advances of OncoAge and summarizes some of the issues faced by this consortium, as well as the short- and long-term perspectives.

Chemotherapy in elderly patients with pancreatic cancer: Efficacy, feasibility and future perspectives

By 2030 70% of newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will occur in older adults. Elderly patients, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as people older than 65 years, represent a heterogeneous group with different biological and functional characteristics that need personalized anticancer treatments. Since older patients are under-represented in randomized phase III trials, their management is mostly extrapolated from studies performed in younger patients, without robust evidence-based recommendations. However, data from retrospective studies and case-control series show that elderly may benefit from chemotherapy in both the adjuvant and advanced disease settings. Although with discordant results, gemcitabine-based treatment and dose-adapted fluorouracil combination regimens seem to be effective and well tolerated in this subset of patients. A proper balance of potential treatment benefits and side effects represent the crucial point for managing elderly patients with PDAC. Therefore an appropriate patient selection is essential to maximize the therapeutic benefit in the older population: randomized studies aiming to better standardizing fitness parameters and implementing the routine use of comprehensive geriatric assessments are strongly warranted. In this light, the detection of molecular prognostic markers able to detect patients who may benefit more from oncological treatments should be a primary endpoint of age-focused clinical trials. Altogether, the field of geriatric oncology will expand in the next years, and the clinical management of elderly patients affected by PDAC will become a major public health issue.