Evaluation of a new two-step frailty assessment of head and neck patients in a prospective cohort

PURPOSE

Assessing frailty, in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is key when choosing appropriate treatment. Optimal screening is challenging, as it should be feasible and should avoid over-referral for comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) This study aims to evaluate the association between geriatric assessment using a new two-step care pathway, referral to geriatrician and adverse outcomes.

METHODS

This institutional retrospective analysis on a prospective cohort analysed the multimodal geriatric assessment (GA) of newly diagnosed HNC patients. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression was performed to study the association between the screening tests, and referral to the geriatrician for complete geriatric screening, and adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

This study included 539 patients, of whom 276 were screened. Patients who underwent the GA, were significantly older and more often had advanced tumour stages compared to non-screened patients. Referral to the geriatrician was done for 30.8% of patients. Of the 130 patients who underwent surgery, 26/130 (20%) experienced clinically relevant postoperative complications. Of the 184 patients who underwent (radio)chemotherapy, 50/184 (27.2%) had clinically relevant treatment-related toxicity. Age, treatment intensity, polypharmacy and cognitive deficits, were independently associated with referral to geriatrician. A medium to high risk of malnutrition was independently associated with acute radiation induced toxicity and adverse outcomes in general.

CONCLUSION

The current study showed a 30.8% referral rate for CGA by a geriatrician. Age, treatment intensity, cognitive deficits and polypharmacy were associated with higher rates of referral. Furthermore, nutritional status was found to be an important negative factor for adverse treatment outcomes, that requires attention.

Geriatric evaluation methods in oncology and their use in clinical studies: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic options in oncology keep on expanding. Nonetheless, older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials and those enrolled often have a better health status than their average peers, resulting in a lack of representative evidence for this heterogenous population. The inclusion of older patients and a uniform categorization of "frailty" is becoming increasingly urgent. Standardized tools could contribute to the quality and comparability of clinical trials and facilitate clinical decisions. The aim of this literature review was to elaborate an overview of the use of geriatric evaluation (GE) methods in clinical cancer research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a literature review of the PubMed database. Clinical pharmacotherapy studies that applied or evaluated a clearly defined system for the GE of oncological patients were included. Data retrieved encompassed the applied GE method(s), cancer type(s), and pharmacotherapy investigated, the number of included patients, study type, year of publication, as well as the primary purpose of the GE. The GEs used most frequently were depicted in more depth.

RESULTS

In this literature review, 103 publications were selected for inclusion. The biggest proportion of studies (36%, n = 34) used clearly defined, but not previously validated, GE methods (study-specific GE). Standardized GE methods encountered in at least five publications were the G8 screening test (applied in 18% of included studies, n = 17), the Balducci score (7%, n = 7), and a geriatric assessment based on Hurria (5%, n = 5). The primary purpose of GE was predominantly an appraisal of its potential role in pharmacotherapy optimization. The GE also served as baseline and outcome measure, inclusion/exclusion criterion, factor for stratified randomization, and to determine treatment allocation.

DISCUSSION

The wide range of GE methods used across studies make direct comparisons difficult, and many methods are poorly characterized and/or not previously validated. The further inclusion of representative older patients in clinical trials combined with the use of a standardized GE could help clinicians in the decision-making process.

Predictive value of the G8 screening tool for postoperative complications in older adults undergoing cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Older adults with cancer who are being considered for cancer surgery are heterogenous, with variation in their physical, mental, and social baselines and risk of postoperative complications. Due in part to the complex nature of this population, the optimal preoperative evaluation method is not clearly defined. In this study we investigated whether geriatric-8 (G8), a screening tool for older patients with cancer that determines the need for a full geriatric assessment, is suitable for assessing the risk of postoperative complications in this population being considered for surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies that enrolled older patients undergoing cancer surgery and compared prevalence of postoperative complications in G8 "high" (≥15) patients and G8 "low" (<15) patients were identified using PubMed and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the risk ratio of postoperative complication rate. Postoperative mortality was systematically reviewed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies published between 2017 and 2022 were included in our analysis with a total of 2,691 older patients who underwent various types of cancer surgery and were characterized by their G8 scores: 1,255 G8 high (≥15) patients and 1,436 G8 low (<15) patients. G8 low patients had a significantly higher prevalence of postoperative complications than G8 high patients (risk ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.56 [1.18-2.07], p = 0.002, I2 = 79%).

DISCUSSION

G8 can be an effective and efficient preoperative tool to assess risk of postoperative complications in older adults undergoing cancer surgery and identify potential need for further evaluation of an individual's risk with a comprehensive geriatric assessment.

Geriatric predictors of response and adverse events in older patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has improved cancer treatment in recent years. Older and frail patients are frequently treated with ICIs, but since they have been underrepresented in previous clinical trials, the real impact of ICI in this patient group is not well defined. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for associations between geriatric impairments and treatment outcomes in older patients with advanced and metastatic cancer treated with ICIs.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant articles published before June 2022. Studies investigating the association between impairments in at least two geriatric domains and treatment outcome were considered eligible. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the QUIPS tool was performed independently by two investigators.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included. Median sample size of the studies was 92 patients (interquartile range (IQR) 47-113), with a median of 26 frail patients (IQR 21-35). Five studies investigated disease-related and survival outcomes, and two of them found a statistically significant association between geriatric impairments and either survival or disease progression. Eight studies investigated toxicity outcomes, and two of them showed a statistically significant association between geriatric impairments and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Few studies suggested a relation between geriatric impairments and worse clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a few studies have investigated the association between geriatric impairments and treatment outcomes and these studies were small. Older patients with geriatric impairments seem to be more likely to experience irAEs, but larger studies that include frail patients and use geriatric screening tools are required to confirm this association. These studies will be essential to improve the development of specific strategies to deal with frail patients.

Item analysis of G8 screening in uro-oncologic geriatric patients

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

The G8 score is a widespread screening tool for geriatric frailty in oncology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scores and relevance of G8 items in a standard screening of geriatric patients with uro-oncologic diseases to better understand the results of the assessment.

METHODS

Eighty-two consecutive uro-oncologic geriatric patients aged 75 years and older were evaluated. All patients underwent a G8 screening that consisted of 8 items. Patients with a G8 score above 14 were considered geriatric "fit", while others were considered to be "frail". Overall results and single item scores were evaluated. Clinical data were gathered from patients' charts.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 82 years (min. 75-max. 102). In 36 of the patients, the G8 score indicated "no-frailty", and in 46 patients, the G8 score indicated "frailty". The mean G8 score was 12.9 (min 4-max 17 pts). Item analysis revealed that points were most often lost in items H (polypharmacy), P (comparison of health status to peers) and Age. Fifty-nine, 56 and 52 patients lost points on item Age, item H and item P, respectively. In contrast, the majority of patients reached the maximum score for nutritional items [i.e., items A (food intake), B (weight loss) and F (body mass index (BMI))]. For item A, 73 patients reached the maximum score; for item B, 62 patients reached the maximum score; and for item F, 72 patients reached the maximum score. There were no differences in this distribution pattern when comparing tumour entities, sex, and patients with local vs. metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed a high percentage of suspicious test results. Potential reasons for these findings include the low threshold of the G8 overall score and the fact that in some items, points were easily lost. Modifications of the test should be considered.

Linking clinical and population-based data in older patients with cancer in Belgium: Feasibility and clinical outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric screening and geriatric assessment (GS/GA) have proven their benefits in the care for older patients with cancer. However, less is known about the predictive value of GS/GA for outcomes. To research this, clinical data on GS/GA can be enriched with population-based data. In this article we describe the methods and feasibility of data linkage, and first clinical outcomes (GS/GA results and overall survival).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A large cohort study consisting of patients aged ≥70 years with a new cancer diagnosis was established using linked data from clinical and population-based databases. Clinical data were derived from a previous prospective study where older patients with cancer were screened with G8, followed by GA in case of an abnormal result (GS/GA study; 2009-2015). These data were linked to cancer registration data from the Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR), reimbursement data of the health insurance companies (InterMutualistic Agency, IMA), and hospital discharge data (Technical Cell, TCT). Cox regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the prognostic value of the G8 geriatric screening tool.

RESULTS

Of the 8067 eligible patients with a new cancer diagnosis, linkage of data from the GS/GA study and data from the BCR was successful for 93.7%, resulting in a cohort of 7556 patients available for the current analysis. Further linkage with the IMA and TCT database resulted in a cohort of 7314 patients (96.8%). Based on G8 geriatric screening, 67.9% of the patients had a geriatric risk profile. Malnutrition and functional dependence were the most common GA-identified risk factors. An abnormal baseline G8 score (≤14/17) was associated with lower overall survival (adjusted HR [aHR] = 1.62 [1.50-1.75], p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Linking clinical and population-based databases for older patients with cancer has shown to be feasible. The GS/GA results at cancer diagnosis demonstrate the vulnerability of this population and the G8 score showed prognostic value for overall survival. The established cohort of almost 8000 patients with long-term follow-up will serve as a basis in the future for detailed analyses on long-term outcomes beyond survival.

Screening for common eye diseases in the elderly with Optos ultra-wide-field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy: a pilot study with focus on ocular toxoplasmosis

Purpose

Studies on the occurrence of ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) in a general population are rare. Therefore, we conducted this pilot study to assess whether a nonmydriatic ultra-wide-field (UWF) scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) is suitable for a simple, rapid screening procedure.

Methods

The population of this cross-sectional study was randomly recruited from a cohort of hospital-based patients in an urban geriatric hospital. Ophthalmologic evaluation was performed on 201 eyes from 101 participants through nonmydriatic UWF-SLO (Optos Daytona) and assessed for suspicious lesions and other relevant ocular findings. All images were evaluated by two independent examiners. Individuals who presented lesions with a morphological appearance suggestive of OT underwent fundoscopy and serological analysis of Toxoplasma gondii-specific antibodies.

Results

The mean age of the study group was 76 years, and 63 (62%) were female. Despite many health restrictions, the SLO examination was carried out easily in this geriatric population. Three participants presented findings by SLO suspicious for T. gondii-related injury. Further clinical examination and serological investigation confirmed the diagnosis, with funduscopic evaluation and positive T. gondii ELISA testing. In addition, a high rate of arterial hypertension and dyslipidemias within the cohort led to a high incidence of vascular changes and age-related fundus findings.

Conclusion

In our study, we confirm that UWF-SLO technology is helpful in the rapid detection of peripheral retinal injuries in elderly patients such as OT and may be used as a routine screening tool.

GERiatric Screening in the treatment of elderly patients with Ovarian Carcinoma (GERSOC): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Approximately 40% of the newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer are aged 70 years or older. Standard treatment for advanced disease consists of cytoreductive surgery and combination chemotherapy. In older patients, standard treatment is often withheld or prematurely stopped due to suspected frailty. It remains challenging to distinguish fit elderly patients who can endure standard therapy from frail patients who may benefit from an adapted treatment strategy. As a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) can contribute to the identification of frail patients and improve tailored therapy in this population, screening tests were developed to select those who may benefit from a CGA. However, the use of these geriatric screening tests has rarely been compared with usual clinical care. The GERSOC-trial will evaluate whether geriatric screening in elderly patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer improves treatment completion and quality of life.

Methods

This pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted at a minimum of 20 hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitals are randomly assigned to geriatric screening care (in which a geriatric screening comprised of the G8 questionnaire and the Timed Up and Go test is performed), or care as usual (in which current usual care is continued). A total of 320 patients aged ≥ 70 years with primary, advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma will be included. Patients considered fit on geriatric screening will receive standard treatment; patients who are considered unfit will be referred to a geriatrician for analysis and treatment advice. The primary outcome is the percentage difference in completed standard and adapted therapies between the two study arms. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, cost-effectiveness and survival.

Discussion

This trial aims to gather evidence for the use of geriatric screening in treatment decision-making in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer. If proven feasible, beneficial and cost-effective, geriatric screening may be implemented in routine clinical practice.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Registry, ID: NL6745. Registered on 2 August 2017.

Korean version of the G-8 geriatric screening tool: Translation and linguistic validation

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.