1
|
Kwan BS, Lee OJ, Kim HJ, Kim KM, Shim SG, Cho DH, Kong SM, Kim JY, Ji JH. Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer. J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12093334. [PMID: 37176774 PMCID: PMC10178943 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12093334] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2023] [Revised: 05/02/2023] [Accepted: 05/06/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS The incidence of pancreatic cancer (PC) is gradually increasing among elderly individuals, but there are insufficient clinical data on elderly individuals. To determine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy, we compared the. the outcomes of elderly patients with unresectable PC. METHODS We enrolled patients aged 75 years or older diagnosed with PC from 1 January 2010 to 30 November 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the heterogeneity of the study population. For efficacy evaluation, the median overall survival (OS) was estimated for the chemotherapy and nonchemotherapy groups. Chemotherapy tolerability evaluations were also investigated. RESULTS The study included 115 patients, 47 of whom received chemotherapy and 68 who did not. After PSM, compared with the nonchemotherapy group, the chemotherapy group had more myocardial infarctions (14.6 vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.4 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.043). The primary endpoint, median OS, was significantly different in the with vs. without chemotherapy groups (203 vs. 106 days, p = 0.013). In the chemotherapy group, 10 patients (21.3%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events. However, there were no reports of death due to severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that chemotherapy improved median OS among elderly patients. These data could support the use of chemotherapy for elderly patients with unresectable PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Byung Soo Kwan
- Department of Medicine, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Republic of Korea
| | - Ok Jae Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea
- Institute of Health Sciences, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyun Jin Kim
- Institute of Health Sciences, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon 51472, Republic of Korea
| | - Kwang Min Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Republic of Korea
| | - Sang Goon Shim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Republic of Korea
| | - Dae Hyeon Cho
- Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung Min Kong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Republic of Korea
| | - Jun Young Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Republic of Korea
| | - Jun Ho Ji
- Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon 51353, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hutcheon JA, Liauw J. Improving the external validity of Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids trial findings. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2023; 37:1-8. [PMID: 34981851 PMCID: PMC9250943 DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12856] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2021] [Revised: 12/09/2021] [Accepted: 12/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The external validity of randomised trials can be compromised when trial participants differ from real-world populations. In the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids (ALPS) trial of antenatal corticosteroids at late preterm ages, participants had systematically younger gestational ages than those outside the trial setting. As risk of respiratory morbidity (the primary trial outcome) is higher at younger gestations, absolute benefits of corticosteroids calculated in the trial population may overestimate real-world treatment benefits. OBJECTIVES To estimate the real-world absolute risk reduction and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for antenatal corticosteroids at late preterm ages, accounting for gestational age differences between the ALPS and real-world populations. METHODS Individual participant data from the ALPS trial (which recruited 2831 women with imminent preterm birth at 34+0 to 36+5 weeks') was appended to population-based data for 15,741 women admitted for delivery between 34+0 and 36+5 weeks' from British Columbia, Canada, 2000-2013. We used logistic regression to calculate inverse odds of sampling weights for each trial participant and re-estimated treatment effects of corticosteroids on neonatal respiratory morbidity in ALPS participants, weighted to reflect the gestational age distribution of the population-based (real-world) sample. RESULTS The real-world absolute risk reduction was estimated to be -2.2 (95% CI -4.6, 0.0) cases of respiratory morbidity per 100, compared with -2.8 (95% CI -5.3, -0.3) in original trial data. Corresponding NNTs were 46 in the real-world setting vs 35 in the trial. Our focus on absolute measures also highlighted that the benefits of antenatal corticosteroids may be meaningfully greater at 34 weeks vs. 36 weeks (e.g., risk reductions of -3.7 vs. -1.2 per 100 respectively). CONCLUSIONS The absolute risk reductions and NNTs associated with antenatal corticosteroid administration at late preterm ages estimated in our study may be more appropriate for patient counselling as they better reflect the anticipated benefits of treatment when used in a real-world situation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer A Hutcheon
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Jessica Liauw
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Huang C, Ding Z, Li H, Zhou Z, Yu M. A novel nomogram for predicting long-term heart-disease specific survival among older female primary breast cancer patients that underwent chemotherapy: A real-world data retrospective cohort study. Front Public Health 2022; 10:964609. [PMID: 36091523 PMCID: PMC9449644 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.964609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 08/10/2022] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The past decade has witnessed an improvement in survival rates for breast cancer, with significant inroads achieved in diagnosis and treatment approaches. Even though chemotherapy is effective for this patient population, cardiotoxicity remains a major challenge, especially in older people. It has been established that cardiovascular events are a major cause of death in older female primary breast cancer patients that underwent chemotherapy. In the present study, the independent prognostic factors were identified to develop a novel nomogram for predicting long-term heart disease-specific survival (HDSS) and improving patient management. Method Older female primary breast cancer patients that underwent chemotherapy from 2010 to 2015 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and randomly assigned to a training cohort and a validation cohort at a ratio of 7:3. HDSS was the primary endpoint of this study. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted on the training cohort to identify independent prognostic factors of HDSS and construct a nomogram to predict the 5- and 8-year HDSS. The performance of the constructed nomogram was evaluated by calibration curve, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and decision curve analyses. Finally, a risk classification system was constructed to assist in patient management. Result A total of 16,340 patients were included in this study. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified six independent prognostic factors: age, race, tumor stage, marital status, surgery, and radiotherapy. A nomogram based on these six factors yielded excellent performance, with areas under the curve of the ROC for 5- and 8-year HDSS of 0.759 and 0.727 in the training cohort and 0.718 and 0.747 in the validation cohort. Moreover, the established risk classification system could effectively identify patients at low-, middle-, and high- risk of heart disease-associated death and achieve targeted management. Conclusion Independent prognostic factors of HDSS in older female primary breast cancer patients that underwent chemotherapy were determined in this study. A novel nomogram for predicting 5- and 8-year HDSS in this patient population was also established and validated to help physicians during clinical decision-making and screen high-risk patients to improve outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chao Huang
- Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zichuan Ding
- Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Hao Li
- Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zongke Zhou
- Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China,*Correspondence: Zongke Zhou
| | - Min Yu
- Department of Anesthesiology, North-Kuanren General Hospital, Chongqing, China,Min Yu
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Barros AG, Pulido CF, Machado M, Brito MJ, Couto N, Sousa O, Melo SA, Mansinho H. Treatment optimization of locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer (Review). Int J Oncol 2021; 59:110. [PMID: 34859257 PMCID: PMC8651228 DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2021.5290] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal malignant tumor types, being the sixth leading cause of mortality worldwide and the fourth in Europe. Globally, it has a mortality/incidence ratio of 98%, and the 5‑year survival rate in Europe is only 3%. Although risk factors, such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, smoking, alcohol consumption and genetic factors, have been identified, the causes of PDAC remain elusive. Additionally, the only curative treatment for PDAC is surgery with negative margins. However, upon diagnosis, ~30% of the patients already present with locally advanced disease. In these cases, a multidisciplinary approach is required to improve disease‑related symptoms and prolong patient survival. In the present article, a comprehensive review of PDAC epidemiology, physiology and treatment is provided. Moreover, guidelines on patient treatment are suggested. Among the different available therapeutic options for the treatment of advanced PDAC, results are modest, most likely due to the complexity of the disease, and so the prognostic remains poor. Molecular approaches based on multi‑omics research are promising and will contribute to groundbreaking personalized medicine. Thus, economic investment that promotes research of pancreatic cancer will be critical to the development of more efficient diagnostic and treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anabela G. Barros
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Coimbra, 3004-561 Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Catarina F. Pulido
- Department of Medical Oncology, Luz Lisbon Hospital, 1500-650 Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Manuela Machado
- Department of Medical Oncology, Entre o Douro e Vouga Hospital Center (CHEDV), 4520-211 Santa Maria da Feira, Portugal
| | - Maria José Brito
- Pathologic Anatomy Department, Garcia de Orta Hospital, 2805-267 Almada, Portugal
| | - Nuno Couto
- Digestive Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
- Champalimaud Research Centre, 1400-038 Lisbon, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
| | - Olga Sousa
- Radiotherapy Department, Portuguese Institute of Oncology, 4200-072 Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
| | - Sónia A. Melo
- i3S-Institute for Research and Innovation in Health of University of Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
- IPATIMUP-Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of University of Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
| | - Hélder Mansinho
- Hemato-Oncology Department, Garcia de Orta Hospital, 2805-267 Almada, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Koga F, Kawaguchi Y, Shimokawa M, Murayama K, Nakashita S, Oza N, Ureshino N, Takahashi H, Ueda Y, Nakazawa J, Komori A, Otsu S, Arima S, Fukahori M, Makiyama A, Taguchi H, Honda T, Shibuki T, Nio K, Ide Y, Mizuta T, Shirakawa T, Otsuka T, Mitsugi K. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: A post-hoc analysis of the real-world data of a multicenter study (the NAPOLEON study). J Geriatr Oncol 2021; 13:82-87. [PMID: 34215525 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2021.06.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2020] [Revised: 06/18/2021] [Accepted: 06/25/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) in older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), especially those ≥75 years old. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study retrospectively enrolled 153 patients with MPC who received GnP as first-line chemotherapy. Patients ≥75 years old were allocated to the older group, and those <75 years old were assigned to the non-older group. We compared safety, antitumor efficacy, and survival between the two groups. In the older group, prognostic indicators of survival were also assessed. RESULTS The pretreatment characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different excluding age, history of malignancy, and C-reactive protein levels. The initial dose and relative dose intensities of GnP were significantly lower in the older group. There were no significant differences in the adverse event and antitumor response rates between the two groups. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.5 and 12.0 months, respectively, in the older group, versus 6.0 and 11.1 months, respectively, in the non-older group. In the older group, a Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index (GNRI) of less than 86 was associated with poor prognosis. CONCLUSION GnP exhibited acceptable efficacy and safety in patients ≥75 years old with MPC. GNRI might be helpful for identifying older individuals at higher risk of unfavorable outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Futa Koga
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, 400 Kase-machi, Saga-shi, Saga 840-8571, Japan; Saga University Graduate School of Medical Science, 5-1-1 Nabeshima, Saga-shi, Saga 849-8501, Japan
| | - Yasunori Kawaguchi
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, 400 Kase-machi, Saga-shi, Saga 840-8571, Japan; Department of Gastroenterology, Asakura Medical Association Hospital, 422-1 Raiha, Asakura-shi, Fukuoka 838-0069, Japan
| | - Mototsugu Shimokawa
- Clinical Research Institute, National Kyushu Cancer Center, 3-1-1 Notame, Minami-ku, Fukuoka-shi, Fukuoka, 811-1395, Japan; Department of Biostatistics, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Minamikogushi, Ube-shi, Yamaguchi 755-8505, Japan
| | - Kenichiro Murayama
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, 400 Kase-machi, Saga-shi, Saga 840-8571, Japan
| | - Shunya Nakashita
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, 400 Kase-machi, Saga-shi, Saga 840-8571, Japan
| | - Noriko Oza
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, 400 Kase-machi, Saga-shi, Saga 840-8571, Japan
| | - Norio Ureshino
- Department of Medical Oncology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, 400 Kase-machi, Saga-shi, Saga 840-8571, Japan; Department of Medical Oncology, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, 1010 Sakurai, Kisarazu-shi, Chiba, 292-8535, Japan
| | - Hirokazu Takahashi
- Liver Center, Saga University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, 5-1-1 Nabeshima, Saga-shi, Saga 849-8501, Japan
| | - Yujiro Ueda
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Japanese Red Cross Kumamoto Hospital, 2-1-1 Nagamine-minami, Higashi-ku, Kumamoto-shi, Kumamoto 861-8520, Japan
| | - Junichi Nakazawa
- Department of Medical Oncology, Kagoshima City Hospital, 37-1 Uearata-cho, Kagoshima-shi, Kagoshima 890-8760, Japan
| | - Azusa Komori
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, 1-1 Idaigaoka, Hasama-machi, Yufu-shi, Oita 879-5593, Japan
| | - Satoshi Otsu
- Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, 1-1 Idaigaoka, Hasama-machi, Yufu-shi, Oita 879-5593, Japan
| | - Shiho Arima
- Digestive and Lifestyle Diseases, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima-shi, Kagoshima 890-8520, Japan
| | - Masaru Fukahori
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume-shi, Fukuoka 830-0011, Japan
| | - Akitaka Makiyama
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization Kyushu Hospital, 1-8-1 Kishinoura, Yahatanishi-ku, Kitakyushu-shi, Fukuoka 806-8501, Japan; Cancer Center, Gifu University Hospital, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu-shi, Gifu 501-1194, Japan
| | - Hiroki Taguchi
- Department of Gastroenterology, Saiseikai Sendai Hospital, 2-46 Harada-cho, Satsumasendai-shi, Kagoshima 895-0074, Japan; Department of Gastroenterology, Izumi General Medical Center, 520 Myojin-cho, Izumi-shi, Kagoshima 899-0131, Japan
| | - Takuya Honda
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki-shi, Nagasaki 852-8501, Japan
| | - Taro Shibuki
- Department of Internal Medicine, Imari Arita Kyoritsu Hospital, 860 Ninose-ko, Arita-cho, Nishi-matsuura-gun, Saga 849-4193, Japan; Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanohara, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba 277-8577, Japan
| | - Kenta Nio
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sasebo Kyosai Hospital, 10-17 Shimanji-cho, Sasebo-shi, Nagasaki 857-8575, Japan
| | - Yasushi Ide
- Department of Internal Medicine, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, 2430 Watada, Karatsu-shi, Saga 847-8588, Japan
| | - Toshihiko Mizuta
- Department of Internal Medicine, Imari Arita Kyoritsu Hospital, 860 Ninose-ko, Arita-cho, Nishi-matsuura-gun, Saga 849-4193, Japan; Department of Internal Medicine, Fujikawa Hospital, 1-2-6 Matsubara, Saga-shi, Saga 840-0831, Japan
| | - Tsuyoshi Shirakawa
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fukuoka Wajiro Hospital, 2-2-75 Wajirogaoka, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka-shi, Fukuoka 811-0213, Japan; Karatsu Higashi-matsuura Medical Association Center, 2566-11 Chiyoda-machi, Karatsu-shi, Saga 847-0041, Japan
| | - Taiga Otsuka
- Department of Medical Oncology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, 400 Kase-machi, Saga-shi, Saga 840-8571, Japan; Department of Internal Medicine, Minato Medical Clinic, 3-11-3 Nagahama, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka-shi, Fukuoka 810-0072, Japan.
| | - Kenji Mitsugi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hamanomachi Hospital, 3-3-1 Nagahama, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka-shi, Fukuoka, 810-8539, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Buja A, Rivera M, De Polo A, Brino ED, Marchetti M, Scioni M, Pasello G, Bortolami A, Rebba V, Schiavon M, Calabrese F, Mandoliti G, Baldo V, Conte P. Estimated direct costs of non-small cell lung cancer by stage at diagnosis and disease management phase: A whole-disease model. Thorac Cancer 2020; 12:13-20. [PMID: 33219738 PMCID: PMC7779199 DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2020] [Revised: 07/24/2020] [Accepted: 07/25/2020] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the first cause of cancer‐related death among men and the second among women worldwide. It also poses an economic threat to the sustainability of healthcare services. This study estimated the direct costs of care for patients with NSCLC by stage at diagnosis, and management phase of pathway recommended in local and international guidelines. Methods Based on the most up‐to‐date guidelines, we developed a very detailed “whole‐disease” model listing the probabilities of all potentially necessary diagnostic and therapeutic actions involved in the management of each stage of NSCLC. We assigned a cost to each procedure, and obtained an estimate of the total and average per‐patient costs of each stage of the disease and phase of its management. Results The mean expected cost of a patient with NSCLC is 21,328 € (95% C.I. −20 897−22 322). This cost is 16 291 € in stage I, 19530 € in stage II, 21938 € in stage III, 22175 € in stage IV, and 28 711 € for a Pancoast tumor. In the early stages of the disease, the main cost is incurred by surgery, whereas in the more advanced stages radiotherapy, medical therapy, treatment for progressions, and supportive care become variously more important. Conclusions An estimation of the direct costs of care for NSCLC is fundamental in order to predict the burden of new oncological therapies and treatments on healthcare services, and thus orient the decisions of policy‐makers regarding the allocation of resources. Key points Significant findings of the study The high costs of surgery make the early stages of the disease no less expensive than the advanced stages. What this study adds An estimation of the direct costs of care is fundamental in order to orient the decisions of policy‐makers regarding the allocation of resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandra Buja
- Department of Cardiologic, Vascular, and Thoracic Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Michele Rivera
- Department of Cardiologic, Vascular, and Thoracic Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Anna De Polo
- Department of Cardiologic, Vascular, and Thoracic Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | | | | | - Manuela Scioni
- Statistics Department, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Giulia Pasello
- Medical Oncology 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | | | - Vincenzo Rebba
- "Marco Fanno" Department of Economics and Management, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Marco Schiavon
- Department of Cardiologic, Vascular, and Thoracic Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Fiorella Calabrese
- Department of Cardiologic, Vascular, and Thoracic Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Giovanni Mandoliti
- U.O.C. Radioterapia oncologica, Ospedale Santa Maria della Misericordia, AULSS 5 "Polesana", Rovigo, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Baldo
- Department of Cardiologic, Vascular, and Thoracic Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - PierFranco Conte
- Medical Oncology 2, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IRCCS, Padova, Italy.,Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mizrahi JD, Rogers JE, Hess KR, Wolff RA, Varadhachary GR, Javle MM, Shroff RT, Ho L, Fogelman DR, Raghav KP, Overman MJ, Pant S. Modified FOLFIRINOX in pancreatic cancer patients Age 75 or older. Pancreatology 2020; 20:501-504. [PMID: 31932214 PMCID: PMC7160008 DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.01.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2019] [Revised: 01/03/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although FOLFIRINOX (5-Fluorouracil + leucovorin + irinotecan + oxaliplatin) is now the standard of care for patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) based on the 2011 study by Conroy et al. which demonstrated improved median overall survival (mOS), pts > 75 yrs old were excluded from this study. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) in this population. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed unresectable PC pts, age ≥ 75, treated with mFOLFIRINOX at MD Anderson from 2011 to 2017. Primary outcome was rate of grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity (HT). RESULTS 24 pts were included. Grade 3 or 4 HT occurred in 11 pts 6 pts required hospitalization for any toxicity, and 10 stopped mFOLFIRINOX due to toxicity. The most frequently used starting doses of infusional 5-FU, irinotecan and oxaliplatin were 2400, 150 and 75 mg/m2, respectively. Median PFS was 3.7 months (95% CI: 3.0-5.7) with a median OS of 11.6 months (95% CI: 6.14-15.7). For first line pts, median PFS and OS were 5.1 (95% CI: 2.0-12.8) and 12.2 months (95% CI: 4.8-30.8), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this single-center retrospective analysis of unresectable PC pts age 75 or older given mFOLFIRINOX, toxicities and survival outcomes were similar to those reported in the initial study. These data indicate that the use of modified dosing FOLFIRINOX in advanced PC pts older than 75 appears to maintain similar toxicity and efficacy when compared to younger pts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Linus Ho
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | - Shubham Pant
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Yuk HD, Kim JJ, Ku JH, Kwak C, Kim HH, Jeong CW. Korean version of the G-8 geriatric screening tool: Translation and linguistic validation. J Geriatr Oncol 2020; 11:470-474. [PMID: 31235435 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2018] [Revised: 05/02/2019] [Accepted: 06/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To develop a Korean version of the G-8 questionnaire validated with Korean patients over 70 years-of-age who were scheduled to undergo cancer surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a translation study over a nine-month period from February to November 2017. Permission was received to use the original version of the G-8 questionnaire for forward translation into Korean and reconciliation, for backward translation of the translated Korean version into English, for cognitive debriefing, and final proofreading. These steps were performed in the order of translation and then language validation. Forward translation was performed independently by two translators who were fluent in Korean and English. The cognitive debriefing was carried out through interviews with ten Korean nurses who cared for the patients surveyed. RESULTS In the forward translation, "mobility" was replaced by "degree of activity". During the reconciliation, the difference in meaning between the terms "loss of appetite" and "severe," as determined by the two translators, was adjusted. Moreover, to achieve more natural Korean expression, some revisions were made to the questions and answers. In the backward translation, most of the forward translations were accepted without any objection. During the final proofreading, no difficulties were found in understanding the questionnaire's content, and most terms were deemed easy to understand. CONCLUSION This Korean version of the G-8 questionnaire has been validated in accordance with appropriate procedures. Therefore, the questionnaire is appropriate for use as a geriatric screening tool for older patients with cancer in Korea.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyeong Dong Yuk
- Department of Urology, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, 1342 Dongil-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01757, Republic of Korea; Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak - ro, Jongno - gu, Seoul 110 -744, Republic of Korea
| | - Julia Jooyoung Kim
- Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, 185 S. Orange Ave, Newark, NJ 07103, USA.
| | - Ja Hyeon Ku
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak - ro, Jongno - gu, Seoul 110 -744, Republic of Korea.
| | - Cheol Kwak
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak - ro, Jongno - gu, Seoul 110 -744, Republic of Korea.
| | - Hyeon Hoe Kim
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak - ro, Jongno - gu, Seoul 110 -744, Republic of Korea.
| | - Chang Wook Jeong
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak - ro, Jongno - gu, Seoul 110 -744, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Geriatric oncology health services research: Cancer and Aging Research Group infrastructure core. J Geriatr Oncol 2019; 11:350-354. [PMID: 31326392 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2019] [Revised: 07/08/2019] [Accepted: 07/09/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
10
|
Webster-Clark MA, Sanoff HK, Stürmer T, Peacock Hinton S, Lund JL. Diagnostic Assessment of Assumptions for External Validity: An Example Using Data in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Epidemiology 2019; 30:103-111. [PMID: 30252687 PMCID: PMC6269648 DOI: 10.1097/ede.0000000000000926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Methods developed to estimate intervention effects in external target populations assume that all important effect measure modifiers have been identified and appropriately modeled. Propensity score-based diagnostics can be used to assess the plausibility of these assumptions for weighting methods. METHODS We demonstrate the use of these diagnostics when assessing the transportability of treatment effects from the standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer control arm in a phase III trial (HORIZON III) to a target population of 1,942 Medicare beneficiaries age 65+ years. RESULTS In an unadjusted comparison, control arm participants had lower mortality compared with target population patients treated with the standard of care therapy (trial vs. target hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58, 0.89). Applying inverse odds of sampling weights attenuated the trial versus target HR (weighted HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.73, 1.26). However, whether unadjusted or weighted, hazards did not appear proportional. At 6 months of follow-up, mortality was lower in the weighted trial population than the target population (weighted trial vs. target risk difference [RD] = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.13, -0.01), but not at 12 months (weighted RD = 0.00, 95% CI = -0.09, 0.09). CONCLUSION These diagnostics suggest that direct transport of treatment effects from HORIZON III to the Medicare population is not valid. However, the proposed sampling model might allow valid transport of the treatment effects on longer-term mortality from HORIZON III to the Medicare population treated in clinical practice. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B435.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hanna K Sanoff
- Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Til Stürmer
- From the Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | | | - Jennifer L Lund
- From the Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Tranvåg EJ, Norheim OF, Ottersen T. Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age. BMC Cancer 2018; 18:546. [PMID: 29743048 PMCID: PMC5944161 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4456-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2017] [Accepted: 04/30/2018] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Patient age is among the most controversial patient characteristics in clinical decision making. In personalized cancer medicine it is important to understand how individual characteristics do affect practice and how to appropriately incorporate such factors into decision making. Some argue that using age in decision making is unethical, and how patient age should guide cancer care is unsettled. This article provides an overview of the use of age in clinical decision making and discusses how age can be relevant in the context of personalized medicine. Methods We conducted a scoping review, searching Pubmed for English references published between 1985 and May 2017. References concerning cancer, with patients above the age of 18 and that discussed age in relation to diagnostic or treatment decisions were included. References that were non-medical or concerning patients below the age of 18, and references that were case reports, ongoing studies or opinion pieces were excluded. Additional references were collected through snowballing and from selected reports, guidelines and articles. Results Three hundred and forty-seven relevant references were identified. Patient age can have many and diverse roles in clinical decision making: Contextual roles linked to access (age influences how fast patients are referred to specialized care) and incidence (association between increasing age and increasing incidence rates for cancer); patient-relevant roles linked to physiology (age-related changes in drug metabolism) and comorbidity (association between increasing age and increasing number of comorbidities); and roles related to interventions, such as treatment (older patients receive substandard care) and outcome (survival varies by age). Conclusions Patient age is integrated into cancer care decision making in a range of ways that makes it difficult to claim age-neutrality. Acknowledging this and being more transparent about the use of age in decision making are likely to promote better clinical decisions, irrespective of one’s normative viewpoint. This overview also provides a starting point for future discussions on the appropriate role of age in cancer care decision making, which we see as crucial for harnessing the full potential of personalized medicine. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4456-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eirik Joakim Tranvåg
- Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. .,Centre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
| | - Ole Frithjof Norheim
- Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.,Centre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Trygve Ottersen
- Oslo Group on Global Health Policy, Department of Community Medicine and Global Health and Centre for Global Health, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.,Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Cohen SM, Maciejewski RC, Shah MA, Trevino KM, Shen MJ, Maciejewski PK, Prigerson HG. Being present: oncologists' role in promoting advanced cancer patients' illness understanding. Cancer Med 2018; 7:1511-1518. [PMID: 29479843 PMCID: PMC5911627 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2017] [Revised: 01/18/2018] [Accepted: 01/19/2018] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Realistic illness understanding is essential to an advanced cancer patient's ability to make informed medical decisions at the end of life. This study sought to determine whether advanced cancer patients better understood the late stage of their cancer if an oncologist, compared to other members of the care team, was present to discuss their scan results. Data were derived from a multi-institutional, longitudinal cohort study of patients recruited between 2010 and 2015. Patients (n = 209) with late-stage cancers (metastatic cancers that progressed after at least one chemotherapy regimen) were interviewed before and after clinic visits in which scan results were discussed. Patients reported pre- and postvisit if their cancer was at a late stage. Postvisit, patients reported if they discussed scan results with an oncologist or another oncology provider (i.e., oncology fellow, oncology resident, nurse practitioner, nurse, physician's assistant, or other). Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if the presence of an oncologist during scan results discussions differentially predicted the patients' likelihood of postvisit late-stage illness understanding (LSIU). Propensity weighting was used to correct for sociodemographic imbalances between groups, and previsit LSIU and the presence of multiple providers were controlled for in the logistic regression analyses. After propensity-weighted adjustment and controlling for previsit LSIU and the presence of multiple providers, patients were 2.6 times more likely (AOR = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.2, 6.0; P = 0.021) to report that their disease was late stage if an oncologist was present for the scan results discussion compared to if an oncologist was absent. The presence of an oncologist during scan results discussions was associated with a higher likelihood of patients acknowledging being in a late stage of their disease. These results suggest that oncologist involvement in scan results discussions is associated with advanced cancer patients having better prognostic understanding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon M. Cohen
- Department of MedicineCenter for Research on End‐of‐Life CareWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative MedicineDepartment of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
| | - Renee C. Maciejewski
- Department of MedicineCenter for Research on End‐of‐Life CareWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative MedicineDepartment of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
| | - Manish A. Shah
- Division of Hematology and Medical OncologyDepartment of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
| | - Kelly M. Trevino
- Department of MedicineCenter for Research on End‐of‐Life CareWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative MedicineDepartment of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
| | - Megan J. Shen
- Department of MedicineCenter for Research on End‐of‐Life CareWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative MedicineDepartment of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
| | - Paul K. Maciejewski
- Department of MedicineCenter for Research on End‐of‐Life CareWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative MedicineDepartment of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
- Department of RadiologyWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
| | - Holly G. Prigerson
- Department of MedicineCenter for Research on End‐of‐Life CareWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
- Division of Geriatric and Palliative MedicineDepartment of MedicineWeill Cornell MedicineNew York CityNew York
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Cook ED, Yeager KA, Cecchini RS, Boparai J, Brown CL, Duncan M, Cronin WM, Paskett ED. Recruitment practices for U.S. minority and underserved populations in NRG oncology: Results of an online survey. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2018; 10:100-104. [PMID: 30023443 PMCID: PMC6046466 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2017] [Revised: 03/04/2018] [Accepted: 03/08/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Cancer clinical trials (CCT) provide much of the evidence for clinical guidelines and standards of care. But low levels of CCT participation are well documented, especially for minorities. Methods and materials We conducted an online survey of 556 recruitment practices across the NRG Oncology network. Survey aims were 1) to learn how sites recruit minority/underserved populations; 2) to better understand the catchment areas of the NRG institutions; and 3) to aid in planning education programs for accrual of minority/underserved populations. Results The survey response rate was 34.9%. The most effective methods reported for recruiting minority/underserved participants were patient navigators (44.4%) and translators (38.9%). All institutions reported using a mechanism for eligibility screening and 71% of institutions reported using a screening/enrollment tracking system. CCT training was required at 78.1% and cultural competency training was required at 47.5% of responding institutions. Only 19.9% of sites used community partners to assist with minority recruitment and just 37.1% of respondents reported a defined catchment area. Sites reported very little race and ethnicity data. Conclusion This NRG Oncology online survey provides useful data for improvements in trial enrollment and training to recruit minority/underserved populations to CCT. Areas for further investigation include web-based methods for recruitment and tracking, cultural competency training, definition of catchment areas, use of patient navigators, and community partnerships. The survey results will guide recruitment training programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elise D Cook
- Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, Unit 1360, UT M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, P. O. Box 301439, Houston, TX 77230-1439, USA
| | - Katherine A Yeager
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Winship Cancer Institute, USA
| | - Reena S Cecchini
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, USA.,Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, USA
| | | | - Carol L Brown
- Office of Diversity Programs, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA
| | - Martha Duncan
- Clinical Coordinating Department (CCD), NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh Office, USA
| | - Walter M Cronin
- NRG Oncology, Statistics and Data Management Center, University of Pittsburgh, USA
| | - Electra D Paskett
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Ohio State University, USA.,Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ohio State University, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Shaib WL, Jones JS, Goodman M, Sarmiento JM, Maithel SK, Cardona K, Kane S, Wu C, Alese OB, El-Rayes BF. Evaluation of Treatment Patterns and Survival Outcomes in Elderly Pancreatic Cancer Patients: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Analysis. Oncologist 2018; 23:704-711. [PMID: 29445028 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0487] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2017] [Accepted: 12/27/2017] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Management of pancreatic cancer (PC) in elderly patients is unknown; clinical trials exclude patients with comorbidities and those of extreme age. This study evaluated treatment patterns and survival outcomes in elderly PC patients using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and Medicare data. MATERIALS AND METHODS Histology codes 8140, 8500, 8010, 8560, 8490, 8000, 8260, 8255, 8261, 8263, 8020, 8050, 8141, 8144, 8210, 8211, or 8262 in Medicare Parts A and B were identified. Data regarding demographic, characteristics, treatments, and vital status between 1998 and 2009 were collected from the SEER. Determinants of treatment receipt and overall survival were examined using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. RESULTS A total of 5,975 patients met inclusion. The majority of patients were non-Hispanic whites (85%) and female (55%). Most cases presented with locoregional stage disease (74%); 41% received only chemotherapy, 30% chemotherapy and surgery, 10% surgery alone, 3% radiation, and 16% no cancer-directed therapy. Patients with more advanced cancer, older age, and those residing in areas of poverty were more likely to receive no treatment. Among patients 66-74 years of age with locoregional disease, surgery alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.74) and surgery in combination with chemotherapy (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.91) showed survival benefit as compared with the no treatment group. Among patients ≥75 years of age with locoregional disease, surgery alone (HR = 2.04; 95% CI: 0.87-4.8) or in combination with chemotherapy (HR = 1.59; 95% CI: 0.87-2.91) was not associated with better survival. CONCLUSION Treatment modality and survival differs by age and stage. Low socioeconomic status appears to be a major barrier to the receipt of PC therapy among Medicare patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Elderly patients with cancer are under-represented on clinical trials and usually have comorbid illnesses. The management of elderly patients with pancreatic cancer is unknown, with many retrospective experiences but low sample sizes. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data to analyze treatment patterns and survival of elderly patients with pancreatic cancer on a larger population scale, this study highlights treatment patterns and their effect on survival and proposes possible obstacles to access of care in elderly patients with pancreatic cancer other than Medicare coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Walid L Shaib
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Jeb S Jones
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Michael Goodman
- Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | | | | | - Kenneth Cardona
- Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Sujata Kane
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Christina Wu
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Olatunji B Alese
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Bassel F El-Rayes
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Eubanks A, Pepe J, Veldhuis P, de la Fuente SG. Age as a prognostic indicator for adjuvant therapy in patients who underwent pancreatic resections for cancer. J Geriatr Oncol 2018; 9:362-366. [PMID: 29330039 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2017] [Revised: 10/31/2017] [Accepted: 12/28/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE In pancreatic cancer, the greatest increase in survival is attained by surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Although surgical complications and functional status are recognized as independent factors for halting adjuvant therapy in patients that undergo pancreatic resections, other elements may play a role in deciding which patients get treated postoperatively. Here we determined demographic and clinical characteristics of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, with the primary intent to investigate if age alone affects rates of adjuvant therapy. METHODS/MATERIALS National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients that underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. Groups were divided into: adjuvant chemotherapy (n=17,924) and no adjuvant chemotherapy (n=12,947). Basic demographics and treatment characteristics were analyzed. Age was compared with an independent means test; other comparisons used Chi-square test of independence. RESULTS There was a statistical difference in age (adjuvant therapy 64.86±9.89 vs. no therapy 67.78±11.22, p<0.001), insurance type, facility type, and cancer stage for patients that received adjuvant therapy and those that did not. Average age of patients not receiving chemotherapy was significantly older at each pathologic stage. Subset analysis of patients treated with chemotherapy showed that the majority of patients received single agent regimens (62%), at an average of 59days following surgery, and at academic cancer programs (52%). CONCLUSIONS Regardless of postoperative complications and functional status, age alone appears to affect rates of adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Older patients should be offered tailored regimens that would allow them to complete the intended extent of treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alicia Eubanks
- University of Central Florida College of Medicine, United States
| | - Julie Pepe
- Department of Surgery, Florida Hospital Orlando, Orlando, FL, United States
| | - Paula Veldhuis
- Department of Surgery, Florida Hospital Orlando, Orlando, FL, United States
| | - Sebastian G de la Fuente
- University of Central Florida College of Medicine, United States; Department of Surgery, Florida Hospital Orlando, Orlando, FL, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Targeted Therapies in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: A Focus on Older Patients. Drugs Aging 2017; 34:821-831. [DOI: 10.1007/s40266-017-0495-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
|
17
|
Chung JW, Bilimoria KY, Stulberg JJ, Quinn CM, Hedges LV. Estimation of Population Average Treatment Effects in the FIRST Trial: Application of a Propensity Score-Based Stratification Approach. Health Serv Res 2017; 53:2567-2590. [PMID: 28833067 DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/STUDY QUESTION To estimate and compare sample average treatment effects (SATE) and population average treatment effects (PATE) of a resident duty hour policy change on patient and resident outcomes using data from the Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees Trial ("FIRST Trial"). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING Secondary data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the FIRST Trial (2014-2015). STUDY DESIGN The FIRST Trial was a cluster-randomized pragmatic noninferiority trial designed to evaluate the effects of a resident work hour policy change to permit greater flexibility in scheduling on patient and resident outcomes. We estimated hierarchical logistic regression models to estimate the SATE of a policy change on outcomes within an intent-to-treat framework. Propensity score-based poststratification was used to estimate PATE. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS This study was a secondary analysis of previously collected data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Although SATE estimates suggested noninferiority of outcomes under flexible duty hour policy versus standard policy, the noninferiority of a policy change was inconclusively noninferior based on PATE estimates due to imprecision. CONCLUSIONS Propensity score-based poststratification can be valuable tools to address trial generalizability but may yield imprecise estimates of PATE when sparse strata exist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeanette W Chung
- Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Karl Y Bilimoria
- Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Jonah J Stulberg
- Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Christopher M Quinn
- Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Larry V Hedges
- Department of Statistics, Department of Psychology, Department of Medical Social Sciences, School of Education and Social Policy, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Hassett MJ, Uno H, Cronin AM, Carroll NM, Hornbrook MC, Fishman P, Ritzwoller DP. Survival after recurrence of stage I-III breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol 2017; 49:186-194. [PMID: 28710943 PMCID: PMC5572775 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2017.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2017] [Revised: 06/24/2017] [Accepted: 07/03/2017] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The experiences of patients with recurrent cancer are assumed to reflect those of patients with de novo stage IV disease; yet, little is truly known because most registries lack recurrence status. Using two databases with excellent recurrence and death information, we examined determinants of survival duration after recurrence of breast (BC), colorectal (CRC), and lung cancers (LC). METHODS Recurrence status was abstracted from the medical records of patients who participated in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance study and who received care at two Cancer Research Network sites-the Colorado and Northwest regions of Kaiser Permanente. The analysis included 1653 patients who developed recurrence after completing definitive therapy for stages I-III cancer. Multivariable modeling identified independent determinants of survival duration after recurrence, controlling for other factors. RESULTS Through 60 months' average follow-up, survival after recurrence for BC, CRC, and LC were 28.4, 23.1 and 16.1 months, respectively. Several factors were independently associated with shorter survival for all three cancers, including higher initial stage (III vs. I: BC -9.9 months; CRC -6.9 months; LC -7.4 months; P≤0.01). Factors associated with shorter survival for selected cancers included: distant/regional recurrence for BC and CRC; current/former smoker for LC; high grade for CRC; and <4-year time-to-recurrence for BC. CONCLUSIONS Initial stage predicts survival duration after recurrence, whereas time-to-recurrence usually does not. The impact of biologic characteristics (e.g., grade, hormone-receptor status) on survival duration after recurrence needs further study. Predictors of survival duration after recurrence may help facilitate patient decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael J Hassett
- Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States.
| | - Hajime Uno
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Angel M Cronin
- Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Nikki M Carroll
- Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Institute for Health Research, Denver, CO, United States
| | - Mark C Hornbrook
- Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, United States
| | - Paul Fishman
- School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Debra P Ritzwoller
- Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Institute for Health Research, Denver, CO, United States
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Gilden DM, Kubisiak JM, Pohl GM, Ball DE, Gilden DE, John WJ, Wetmore S, Winfree KB. Treatment patterns and cost-effectiveness of first line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Medicare patients. J Med Econ 2017; 20:151-161. [PMID: 27574722 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1230550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
AIM To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line pemetrexed/platinum and other commonly administered regimens in a representative US elderly population with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS This study utilized the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry linked to Medicare claims records. The study population included all SEER-Medicare patients diagnosed in 2008-2009 with advanced non-squamous NSCLC (stages IIIB-IV) as their only primary cancer and who started chemotherapy within 90 days of diagnosis. The study evaluated the four most commonly observed first-line regimens: paclitaxel/carboplatin, platinum monotherapy, pemetrexed/platinum, and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab. Overall survival and total healthcare cost comparisons as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for pemetrexed/platinum vs each of the other three. Unstratified analyses and analyses stratified by initial disease stage were conducted. RESULTS The final study population consisted of 2,461 patients. Greater administrative censorship of pemetrexed recipients at the end of the study period disproportionately reduced the observed mean survival for pemetrexed/platinum recipients. The disease stage-stratified ICER analysis found that the pemetrexed/platinum incurred total Medicare costs of $536,424 and $283,560 per observed additional year of life relative to platinum monotherapy and paclitaxel/carboplatin, respectively. The pemetrexed/platinum vs triplet comparator analysis indicated that pemetrexed/platinum was associated with considerably lower total Medicare costs, with no appreciable survival difference. LIMITATIONS Limitations included differential censorship of the study regimen recipients and differential administration of radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Pemetrexed/platinum yielded either improved survival at increased cost or similar survival at reduced cost relative to comparator regimens in the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Limitations in the study methodology suggest that the observed pemetrexed survival benefit was likely conservative.
Collapse
|
20
|
Balaban EP, Mangu PB, Khorana AA, Shah MA, Mukherjee S, Crane CH, Javle MM, Eads JR, Allen P, Ko AH, Engebretson A, Herman JM, Strickler JH, Benson AB, Urba S, Yee NS. Locally Advanced, Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:2654-2668. [PMID: 27247216 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.67.5561] [Citation(s) in RCA: 271] [Impact Index Per Article: 30.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 2002 to June 2015. Outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. The goals of care, patient preferences, psychological status, support systems, and symptoms should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. Initial systemic chemotherapy (6 months) with a combination regimen is recommended for most patients (for some patients radiation therapy may be offered up front) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a favorable comorbidity profile. There is no clear evidence to support one regimen over another. The gemcitabine-based combinations and treatments recommended in the metastatic setting (eg, fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) have not been evaluated in randomized controlled trials involving locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. If there is local disease progression after induction chemotherapy, without metastasis, then radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy may be offered also with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and an adequate comorbidity profile. If there is stable disease after 6 months of induction chemotherapy but unacceptable toxicities, radiation therapy may be offered as an alternative. Patients with disease progression should be offered treatment per the ASCO Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Guideline. Follow-up visits every 3 to 4 months are recommended. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/LAPC and www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward P Balaban
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Pamela B Mangu
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Alok A Khorana
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Manish A Shah
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Somnath Mukherjee
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Christopher H Crane
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Milind M Javle
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Jennifer R Eads
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Peter Allen
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Andrew H Ko
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Anitra Engebretson
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Joseph M Herman
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - John H Strickler
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Al B Benson
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Susan Urba
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Nelson S Yee
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Hatfield LA, Huskamp HA, Lamont EB. Survival and Toxicity After Cisplatin Plus Etoposide Versus Carboplatin Plus Etoposide for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Elderly Patients. J Oncol Pract 2016; 12:666-73. [PMID: 27352949 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2016.012492] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Elderly patients with cancer are under-represented in clinical trials and risk greater toxicity from chemotherapy. These patients and their physicians need better evidence to decide among guideline-recommended regimens. We test whether patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES SCLC) have noninferior survival and less hospital-based health care after carboplatin/etoposide compared with cisplatin/etoposide. METHODS We analyzed SEER-Medicare data for beneficiaries with ES SCLC diagnosed at age 67 years and older between 1995 and 2009. Among patients treated with first-line chemotherapy in the ambulatory setting, 831 received cisplatin/etoposide and 2,846 received carboplatin/etoposide. Propensity score matching (2:1 ratio) yielded 778 cisplatin/etoposide and 1,502 carboplatin/etoposide patients. RESULTS Survival was nearly identical in the two groups: 35.7 weeks for cisplatin/etoposide and 35.9 weeks for carboplatin/etoposide. The hazard ratio of 1 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09) excluded our prespecified threshold, indicating noninferiority. Mortality at 6 months was indistinguishable: 35% for cisplatin/etoposide and 34% for carboplatin/etoposide. After carboplatin/etoposide, patients were less likely to be admitted to a hospital (80% v 86%, P < .001) and had fewer hospitalizations (median 1 v 2, odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.9), ED visits (median 1 v 2, odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI, 0.7 to 0.96), and ICU stays (median 0 v 0, odds ratio 0.82, 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99). CONCLUSION First-line carboplatin/etoposide is associated with similar survival and less subsequent hospital-based health care use than cisplatin/etoposide among elderly patients with ES SCLC treated in ambulatory settings.
Collapse
|
22
|
Hentschel L, Rentsch A, Lenz F, Hornemann B, Schmitt J, Baumann M, Ehninger G, Schuler M. A Questionnaire Study to Assess the Value of the Vulnerable Elders Survey, G8, and Predictors of Toxicity as Screening Tools for Frailty and Toxicity in Geriatric Cancer Patients. Oncol Res Treat 2016; 39:210-6. [DOI: 10.1159/000445365] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2015] [Accepted: 03/10/2016] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
23
|
Higuera O, Ghanem I, Nasimi R, Prieto I, Koren L, Feliu J. Management of pancreatic cancer in the elderly. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22:764-75. [PMID: 26811623 PMCID: PMC4716075 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i2.764] [Citation(s) in RCA: 103] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2015] [Revised: 10/03/2015] [Accepted: 11/09/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Currently, pancreatic adenocarcinoma mainly occurs after 60 years of age, and its prognosis remains poor despite modest improvements in recent decades. The aging of the population will result in a rise in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma within the next years. Thus, the management of pancreatic cancer in the elderly population is gaining increasing relevance. Older cancer patients represent a heterogeneous group with different biological, functional and psychosocial characteristics that can modify the usual management of this disease, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes, polypharmacy, performance status, comorbidities and organ dysfunction. However, the biological age, not the chronological age, of the patient should be the limiting factor in determining the most appropriate treatment for these patients. Unfortunately, despite the increased incidence of this pathology in older patients, there is an underrepresentation of these patients in clinical trials, and the management of older patients is thus determined by extrapolation from the results of studies performed in younger patients. In this review, the special characteristics of the elderly, the multidisciplinary management of localized and advanced ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and the most recent advances in the management of this condition will be discussed, focusing on surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and palliative care.
Collapse
|
24
|
Khera N. From evidence to clinical practice in blood and marrow transplantation. Blood Rev 2015; 29:351-7. [PMID: 25934009 PMCID: PMC4610823 DOI: 10.1016/j.blre.2015.04.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2014] [Revised: 03/04/2015] [Accepted: 04/14/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
Clinical practice in the field of blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) has evolved over time, as a result of thousands of basic and clinical research studies. While it appears that scientific discovery and adaptive clinical research may be well integrated in case of BMT, there is lack of sufficient literature to definitively understand the process of translation of evidence to practice and if it may be selective . In this review, examples from BMT and other areas of medicine are used to highlight the state of and potential barriers to evidence uptake. Strategies to help improve knowledge transfer are discussed and the role of existing framework provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry (CIBMTR) to monitor uptake and BMT Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) to enhance translation of evidence into practice is highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nandita Khera
- College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Prigerson HG, Bao Y, Shah MA, Paulk ME, LeBlanc TW, Schneider BJ, Garrido MM, Reid MC, Berlin DA, Adelson KB, Neugut AI, Maciejewski PK. Chemotherapy Use, Performance Status, and Quality of Life at the End of Life. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1:778-84. [PMID: 26203912 PMCID: PMC4828728 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 445] [Impact Index Per Article: 44.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Although many patients with end-stage cancer are offered chemotherapy to improve quality of life (QOL), the association between chemotherapy and QOL amid progressive metastatic disease has not been well-studied. American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend palliative chemotherapy only for solid tumor patients with good performance status. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between chemotherapy use and QOL near death (QOD) as a function of patients' performance status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multi-institutional, longitudinal cohort study of patients with end-stage cancer recruited between September 2002 and February 2008. Chemotherapy use (n = 158 [50.6%]) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status were assessed at baseline (median = 3.8 months before death) and patients with progressive metastatic cancer (N = 312) following at least 1 chemotherapy regimen were followed prospectively until death at 6 outpatient oncology clinics in the United States. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Patient QOD was determined using validated caregiver ratings of patients' physical and mental distress in their final week. RESULTS Chemotherapy use was not associated with patient survival controlling for clinical setting and patients' performance status. Among patients with good (ECOG score = 1) baseline performance status, chemotherapy use compared with nonuse was associated with worse QOD (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P = .01). Baseline chemotherapy use was not associated with QOD among patients with moderate (ECOG score = 2) baseline performance status (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51-2.21; P = .87) or poor (ECOG score = 3) baseline performance status (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.46-3.89; P = .59). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although palliative chemotherapy is used to improve QOL for patients with end-stage cancer, its use did not improve QOD for patients with moderate or poor performance status and worsened QOD for patients with good performance status. The QOD in patients with end-stage cancer is not improved, and can be harmed, by chemotherapy use near death, even in patients with good performance status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Holly G Prigerson
- Center for Research on End-of-Life Care, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York2Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
| | - Yuhua Bao
- Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
| | - Manish A Shah
- Meyer Cancer Center of Weill Cornell Medical College, Medical Oncology/Solid Tumor Program, New York, New York
| | - M Elizabeth Paulk
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
| | - Thomas W LeBlanc
- Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | - Melissa M Garrido
- James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York9Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - M Carrington Reid
- Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
| | - David A Berlin
- Department of Medicine, Medical Intensive Care Unit, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Center, New York
| | - Kerin B Adelson
- Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale-New Haven, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Alfred I Neugut
- Department of Medicine and Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York12Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Paul K Maciejewski
- Center for Research on End-of-Life Care, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York14Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|