Search

Background: In older patients with cancer, comorbidities compete with cancer for cause of death. The objectives were to evaluate cancer mortality and factors associated, according to metastatic status., Methods: Between 2007 and 2014, patients with cancer aged ≥70 referred for pre-therapeutic geriatric assessment (GA) were included through the ELCAPA prospective cohort study. The underlying cause of death was defined according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. The World Health Organisation definition was used to categorise the cause of death as cancer versus another disease (e.g. cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, etc.) Competing risk models were used., Results: Mean (SD) age of the 1445 included patients was 80.2 (5.8) and 48% were women. Most common tumour sites were colorectal (19%), breast (17%) and urinary (15%); 773 patients (49%) had metastases. After a 34-month median follow-up, 706 cancer deaths were observed among 843 deaths. The 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality rates (95% CI) were 12% (9-15) and 34% (29-38) for non-metastatic patients and 43% (39-47) and 79% (75-82) for metastatic patients, respectively. Dependency in activities of daily living and comorbidities were associated with 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality in non-metastatic (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] = 1.68 [0.99-2.85] and 1.69 [1.16-2.45]; and 1.98 [1.08-3.63] and 3.38 [1.47-7.76], respectively) and metastatic patients (aSHR = 2.81 [2.01-3.93] and 2.95 [2.14-4.07]; and 1.63 [1.18-2.25] and 2.06 [1.39-3.05], respectively). Impaired Timed-Get-Up-and-Go test was associated with 6-month and 3-year cancer mortality in metastatic patients (aSHR = 1.5 [1.06-2.12] and 1.38 [1.06-1.81], respectively). Obesity was negatively associated with 3-year cancer death in non-metastatic (aSHR = 0.53 [0.29-0.97]) and metastatic patients (aSHR = 0.71 [0.51-1.00])., Conclusions: The majority of older adults with cancer referred for pre-therapeutic GA die from cancer. Geriatric parameters are independently associated with cancer mortality and should be considered for prognosis assessment, decision-making and care., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Severe chemotherapy-related toxicities are frequent among older patients. The Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients (CRASH) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Study (CARG) score were both developed to predict these events., Patients and Methods: The objective of this study was to evaluate the scores' predictive performance in a prospective cohort, which included patients aged 70 years and older referred for a geriatric assessment prior to chemotherapy for a solid tumor. The main endpoints were grades 3/4/5 toxicities for the CARG score and grades 4/5 hematologic toxicities and grades 3/4/5 non-hematologic toxicities for the CRASH score., Results: A total of 248 patients were included, of which 150 (61%) and 126 (51%) experienced at least one severe adverse event as defined respectively in CARG and CRASH studies. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly greater in the intermediate and high-risk CARG groups than in the low-risk group (odds ratio (OR) [95% CI] = 0.3 [0.1-1.4] (P = .1) and 0.4 [0.1-1.7], respectively). The area under curve (AUC) was 0.55. Similarly, the incidence of severe toxicities was no greater in the intermediate-low, intermediate-high, and high-risk CRASH groups than in the low-risk CRASH group (OR [95%CI] = 1 [0.3-3.6], 1 [0.3-3.4], and 1.5 [0.3-8.1], respectively). The AUC was 0.52. The type of cancer, performance status, comorbidities, body mass index, and MAX2 index were independently associated with grades 3/4/5 toxicities., Conclusion: In an external cohort of older patients referred for a pretherapeutic GA, the CARG and CRASH scores were poor predictors of the risk of chemotherapy severe toxicities., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objectives: We assessed the direct and indirect effects between six geriatric domains and 6- and 12-month mortality in older cancer patients., Study Design and Setting: We included cancer patients aged ≥70 years from the Elderly Cancer Patients cohort, referred for geriatric assessment between 2007 and 2016. We used structural equation modelling to examine the interrelationships between six geriatric domains (function and mobility, nutrition, cognition, mood, comorbidities and polypharmacy, and social support) and the direct and indirect relationships between these domains, the cancer stage, site, and treatment on the one hand and mortality on the other., Results: The analysis included 1,434 patients (mean age: 80 ± 5.6 years; women: 48%; main cancer sites: digestive tract [36.2%], urinary tract and prostate [26.6%], and breast [16.5%]; metastatic cancer: 48%). Direct relationships to 6- and 12-month mortality were identified for functional impairment (standardized coefficient [SC]: 0.37 [P < 0.001] and 0.32 [P < 0.001], respectively), poor nutritional status (SC: 0.11 [P = 0.005] and 0.14 [P = 0.001]), poor social support (SC = 0.07 [P = 0.08] and 0.09 [P = 0.02]), cancer site, stage, and treatment. The effects of comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and depression on mortality were mediated by functional and nutritional status., Conclusion: In older cancer patients, functional and nutritional impairments were the strongest direct prognostic geriatric factors for mortality., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In older patients with cancer, depression is difficult to assess because of its heterogeneous clinical expression. The 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-4) is quick and easy to administer but has not been validated in this population. The present study was designed to test the diagnostic performance of the GDS-4 in a French cohort of older patients with cancer before treatment., Materials and Methods: Our cross-sectional analysis of data from the Elderly Cancer Patient cohort covered all patients with cancer aged ≥70 years and referred for geriatric assessment at two centers in France between 2007 and 2018. The GDS-4's psychometric properties were evaluated against three different measures of depression: the geriatrician's clinical diagnosis (based on a semistructured interview), the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and a cluster analysis. The scale's sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated., Results: In a sample of 2,293 patients (median age, 81 years; women, 46%), the GDS-4's sensitivity and specificity for detecting physician-diagnosed depression were, respectively, 90% and 89%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 8.2 and 0.11, and the AUROC was 92%. When considering the subset of patients with data on all measures of depression, the sensitivity and specificity values were, respectively, ≥90% and ≥72%, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were, respectively, ≥3.4 and ≤ 0.11, and the AUROC was ≥91%., Conclusion: The GDS-4 appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer., Implications for Practice: Considering the overlap between symptoms of cancer and symptoms of depression, depression is particularly difficult to assess in older geriatric oncology and is associated with poor outcomes; there is a need for a routine psychological screening. Self-report instruments like the 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer. Asking four questions might enable physicians to screen older patients with cancer for depression and then guide them toward further clinical evaluation and appropriate care if required., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Background: The primary objective was to evaluate the rates of older patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were eligible for a clinical trial, invited to participate, and, ultimately, included. The secondary objective was to assess the reasons for ineligibility, noninvitation, and noninclusion and factors associated., Materials and Methods: The Sujets AGés dans les Essais Cliniques (SAGE; Older Subjects in Clinical Trials) multicenter prospective cohort was established in seven centers (10 departments of medical oncology, digestive oncology, and digestive surgery) between 2012 and 2016. All patients with CRC aged 65 or older were studied. The endpoints were clinical trial availability, patient's eligibility, invitation, and enrollment in a trial., Results: We included 577 older patients (mean age ± SD: 75.6 ± 7 years; males: 56%; metastasis: 41%). Thirty-seven trials were ongoing (one trial for older patients). Of the 474 patients with at least one available trial for their cancer stage and site, 127 (27%) were eligible; 84 of these 127 (66%) were invited to participate, and 70 of these 84 (83%) were included. In a multivariate analysis, noninvitation was found to be associated with older age ( p = .016): adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval), 0.14 (0.02-0.60) for ≥80 vs. 65-69; 0.54 (0.18-1.04) for 75-79 vs. 65-69; 0.47 (0.17-0.93) for 70-74 vs. 65-69., Conclusion: Three-quarters of older patients with CRC were ineligible for a clinical trial. One-third of the eligible patients were not invited to participate in a trial, and 17% of invited patients were not included. Few trials are reserved for older patients. Patients aged 80 or older were significantly less likely to be eligible for a trial and invited to participate. Clinical trial identification number : NCT01754636., Implications for Practice: The results of this study suggest that barriers to participation of older patients in clinical trials are particularly marked at age 80 years or older. Secondly, the results emphasize the need for trials for older patients. Thirdly, there is also a need for more pragmatic "real-world" trials, rather than solely randomized trials performed in idealized settings with strictly selected patients. Large prospective observational cohorts with a precise follow-up of toxicity, functional decline, and quality of life may constitute one way of generating more data on the risk-benefit ratio for cancer treatments in older patients., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Background: The expression of depressive symptoms in older people with cancer is heterogeneous because of specific features of age or cancer comorbidity. We aimed to identify depressive symptom profiles in this population and describe the associated features including survival., Materials and Methods: Patients ≥70 years who were referred to geriatric oncology clinics were prospectively included in the ELCAPA study. In this subanalysis, depressive symptoms were used as indicators in a latent class analysis. Multinomial multivariable logistic regression and Cox models examined the association of each class with baseline characteristics and mortality., Results: For the 847 complete-case patients included (median age, 79 years; interquartile range, 76-84; women, 47.9%), we identified five depressive symptom classes: "no depression/somatic only" (38.8%), "no depression/pauci-symptomatic" (26.4%), "severe depression" (20%), "mild depression" (11.8%), and "demoralization" (3%). Compared with the no depression/pauci-symptomatic class, the no depression/somatic only and severe depression classes were characterized by more frequent comorbidities with poorer functional status and higher levels of inflammation. "Severe" and "mild" depression classes also featured poorer nutritional status, more medications, and more frequent falls. Severe depression was associated with poor social support, inpatient status, and increased risk of mortality at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.62, 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.48) and 3 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10)., Conclusion: A data-driven approach based on depressive symptoms identified five different depressive symptom profiles, including demoralization, in older patients with cancer. Severe depression was independently and substantially associated with poor survival., Implications for Practice: Older patients with cancer present with distinct profiles of depressive symptomatology, including different severity levels of depression and the demoralization syndrome. Clinicians should use a systematic assessment of depressive symptoms to adequately highlight these distinct profiles. Geriatric and oncological features are differently associated with these profiles. For instance, severe depression was associated with more frequent comorbidities with poorer functional, poor nutritional status, polypharmacy, frequent falls, inpatient status and poor social support. Also, severe depression was independently and substantially associated with poor survival so that the identification and management of depression should be considered a high priority in this population., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Objective: To compare the preferences of older (≥70 years old) versus younger (<70 years old) cancer patients regarding surrogate designation and decision making., Methods: A cross-sectional survey. Patient characteristics and information about surrogacy and involvement in decision making were collected. Associations between patient characteristics and preferences were examined., Results: The study included 130 patients aged ≥70 years (mean age 80 years) and 102 patients aged <70 years (mean age 55) and. Factors independently associated with surrogate knowledge (66%): younger age, more children living nearby, high income; factors associated with having already designated a surrogate (62%): younger age, decreased number of daily medications; factors associated with designating a surrogate after questionnaire administration (40%): low education, metastasis. Patients requiring an informed consent for any intervention was associated with older age (adjusted OR [aOR] per year  = 1.04[95% confidence interval 1.00-1.08]), not living alone (aOR = 2.52[1.00-6.36]), and having children (aOR = 4.49[1.13-17.81])., Conclusion: All cancer patients, wanted to be fully informed and 72% wanted to be involved in medical decisions. Preferences for decision control vary between age groups, depending on family members' presence and living alone., Practice Implications: Sharing complete and clear information should be an important key in the process of cancer patients' care, regardless of patient age., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Morbidity and mortality review (MMR) meetings in radiation therapy (RT) departments aim to monitor radiation-induced toxicities and identify potential factors that may be correlated with their development and severity, particularly treatment planning errors. The aims of the Prospective Registration of Morbidity and Mortality, Individual Radiosensitivity and Radiation Technique (PROUST) survey were to make an inventory of existing MMR procedures and to describe their procedures., Methods and Materials: The link to the web-based questionnaire of the PROUST survey was sent to 351 radiation oncologists working at 172 centers. The questionnaire included items related to organization, frequency, membership, governance, reasons for nonimplementation of MMR, and interest in its creation., Results: As of July 2017, 108 responses had been received from the 172 centers, of which 107 responses were completed for analysis. All centers declared that they had initiated a quality assurance program in their department, including implementation of feedback committees dedicated to the registration, analysis, and correction of precursor events. Less than half of the centers (47%) had implemented MMR procedures. However, there was significant confusion regarding feedback committees in a majority of the centers. MMRs were organized every 6 and 12 months in 21% and 15%, respectively, of the centers. In 60% of the centers, toxicity grade ≥3 was the main reason for the MMR initiation. In routine practice, contouring and dosimetry files were reviewed by 66% and 83%, respectively, of centers practicing MMR. However, only 40% of the centers enrolled data in a registry dedicated to surveillance. Finally, 78% of centers expressed interest in initiating a consensual procedure., Conclusions: MMRs are not systematically implemented in RT departments worldwide. In France and in Europe, few departments with quality assurance programs have implemented MMRs. This survey showed that a large majority of centers are interested in implementing an MMR with a formalized procedure. Our project could help increase the interest of the RT community worldwide in this topic., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: At cancer diagnosis, it is unclear whether continuity of care (COC) between the patient and GP is safeguarded., Aim: To identify patient-GP loss of COC around the time of, and in the year after, a cancer diagnosis, together with its determinants., Design and Setting: A post-hoc analysis of data from a prospective cohort of GPs in France, taken from a survey by the Observatoire de la Médecine Générale., Method: A prospective GP cohort ( n = 96) filed data on patients who were diagnosed with incident cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2010. COC was assessed by ascertaining the frequency of consultations and the maximal interval between them. (In France, patients see their referring/named GP in most cases.) A loss of COC was measured during the trimester before and the year after the cancer diagnosis, and the results compared with those from a 1-year baseline period before cancer had been diagnosed. A loss of COC was defined as a longer interval (that is, the maximum number of days) between consultations in the measurement periods than at baseline. Determinants of the loss in COC were assessed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression models., Results: In total, 2853 patients were included; the mean age was 66.1 years. Of these, 1440 (50.5%) were women, 389 (13.6%) had metastatic cancer, and 769 (27.0%) had a comorbidity. The mean number of consultations increased up to, and including, the first trimester after diagnosis. Overall, 26.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.3 to 28.6) of patients had a loss of COC in the trimester before the diagnosis, and 22.3% (95% CI = 20.7 to 23.9) in the year after. Increasing comorbidity score was independently associated with a reduction in the loss of COC during the year after diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] comorbidity versus no comorbidity 0.61, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.79); the same was true for metastatic status (adjusted OR metastasis versus no metastasis 0.49, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.70)., Conclusion: As COC is a core value for GPs and for most patients, special care should be taken to prevent a loss of COC around the time of a cancer diagnosis, and in the year after., (© British Journal of General Practice 2019.)

Background: information of older patients with cancer is crucial to ensure optimal care., Objectives: to compare older patients with and without cancer regarding their preferences about medical information, decision-making and surrogate designation., Design: an intention-to-act questionnaire was completed by patients ≥70 y enroled in the ELderly CAncer PAtients cohort between January and June 2013 and by patients in the same age group enroled in a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2005 in acute geriatric wards., Setting: Henri-Mondor Teaching Hospital in the Paris conurbation, France., Results: the group with cancer had 133 patients [mean age, 79.6 ± 6.5 y; 54.9% women]. The main tumour sites were colorectal [24.1%], breast [23.3%] and prostate [15.8%]; 34.8% had metastases. All these patients wanted full information, 74.2% wanted to participate in decisions about their care, 87.2% would designate a family member to serve as a surrogate in life-threatening situations and 15% had already designated a surrogate. Compared to patients without cancer, those with cancer more often wanted to receive information in a life-threatening situation [93.6% versus 79.2%; P < 0.001]. Factors independently associated with patients wanting their informed consent to be obtained for all interventions were having children [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.24; 3.66; P = 0.006], higher Mini Mental State Examination score [aORper point, 1.09; 1.02; 1.17], younger age in the group without cancer [aOR>82 y vs. ≤82 y, 0.50; 0.29-0.88] and being cancer-free [≤82 y, aOR, 0.30; 0.14-0.63; >82 y, aOR, 0.41; 0.17-0.97]., Conclusion: older patients with cancer expressed a strong preference for receiving information and participating in decisions about their care., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Purpose Frailty classifications of older patients with cancer have been developed to assist physicians in selecting cancer treatments and geriatric interventions. They have not been compared, and their performance in predicting outcomes has not been assessed. Our objectives were to assess agreement among four classifications and to compare their predictive performance in a large cohort of in- and outpatients with various cancers. Patients and Methods We prospectively included 1,021 patients age 70 years or older who had solid or hematologic malignancies and underwent a geriatric assessment in one of two French teaching hospitals between 2007 and 2012. Among them, 763 were assessed using four classifications: Balducci, International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 1, SIOG2, and a latent class typology. Agreement was assessed using the κ statistic. Outcomes were 1-year mortality and 6-month unscheduled admissions. Results All four classifications had good discrimination for 1-year mortality (C-index ≥ 0.70); discrimination was best with SIOG1. For 6-month unscheduled admissions, discrimination was good with all four classifications (C-index ≥ 0.70). For classification into three (fit, vulnerable, or frail) or two categories (fit v vulnerable or frail and fit or vulnerable v frail), agreement among the four classifications ranged from very poor (κ ≤ 0.20) to good (0.60 < κ ≤ 0.80). Agreement was best between SIOG1 and the latent class typology and between SIOG1 and Balducci. Conclusion These four frailty classifications have good prognostic performance among older in- and outpatients with various cancers. They may prove useful in decision making about cancer treatments and geriatric interventions and/or in stratifying older patients with cancer in clinical trials.

Background: Several studies have evaluated the independent prognostic value of impairments in single geriatric-assessment (GA) components in elderly cancer patients. None identified homogeneous subgroups. Our aims were to identify such subgroups based on combinations of GA components and to assess their associations with treatment decisions, admission, and death., Methods: We prospectively included 1,021 patients aged ≥70 years who had solid or hematologic malignancies and who underwent a GA in one of two French teaching hospitals. Two geriatricians independently selected candidate GA parameters for latent class analysis, which was then performed on the 821 cases without missing data. Age, gender, tumor site, metastatic status, and inpatient versus outpatient status were used as active covariates and predictors of class membership. Outcomes were cancer treatment decisions, overall 1-year mortality, and 6-month unscheduled admissions. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the overall population of 1,021 patients and on 375 newly enrolled patients., Results: We identified four classes: relatively healthy (LC1, 28%), malnourished (LC2, 36%), cognitive and mood impaired (LC3, 15%), and globally impaired (LC4, 21%). Tumor site, metastatic status, age, and in/outpatient status independently predicted class membership (p < .001). In adjusted pairwise comparisons, compared to LC1, the three other LCs were associated with higher risks of palliative treatment, death, and unscheduled admission (p ≤ .05). LC4 was associated with 1-year mortality and palliative treatment compared to LC2 and LC3 (p ≤ .05)., Conclusion: We identified four health profiles that may help physicians select cancer treatments and geriatric interventions. Researchers may find these profiles useful for stratifying patients in clinical trials., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: A multidimensional geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended in older cancer patients to inventory health problems and tailor treatment decisions accordingly but requires considerable time and human resources. The G8 is among the most sensitive screening tools for selecting patients warranting a full GA but has limited specificity. We sought to develop and validate an optimized version of the G8., Patients and Methods: We used a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years referred to geriatricians for GA (2007-2012: n = 729 [training set]; 2012-2014: n = 414 [validation set]). Abnormal GA was defined as at least one impaired domain across seven validated tests. Multiple correspondence analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and bootstrapped internal validation were performed sequentially., Results: The final model included six independent predictors for abnormal GA: weight loss, cognition/mood, performance status, self-rated health status, polypharmacy (≥ 6 medications per day), and history of heart failure/coronary heart disease. For the original G8, sensitivity was 87.2% (95% confidence interval, 84.3-89.7), specificity 57.7% (47.3-67.7), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 86.5% (83.5-89.6). The modified G8 had corresponding values of 89.2% (86.5-91.5), 79.0% (69.4-86.6), and 91.6% (89.3; 93.9), with higher AUROC values for all tumor sites and stable properties on the validation set., Conclusion: A modified G8 screening tool exhibited better diagnostic performance with greater uniformity across cancer sites and required only six items. If these features are confirmed in other settings, the modified tool may facilitate selection for a full GA in older patients with cancer., Implications for Practice: Several screening tools have been developed to identify older patients with cancer likely to benefit from a complete geriatric assessment, but none combines appropriate sensitivity and specificity. Based on a large prospective cohort study, an optimized G8 tool was developed, combining a systematic statistical approach with expert judgment to ensure optimal discriminative power and clinical relevance. The improved screening tool achieves high sensitivity, high specificity, better homogeneity across cancer types, and greater parsimony with only six items needed, facilitating selection for a full geriatric assessment., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Objective: We aim to assess the prevalence and associated factors of clinical depression in older patients with cancer., Methods: We studied a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years and referred to geriatric oncology clinics between 2007 and 2012. A multidimensional geriatric assessment was performed before choosing the cancer-treatment strategy. Clinical depression was diagnosed by senior geriatricians by a semi-structured interview. It encompassed criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition) and of the International Classification of Diseases (10th edition). Multivariate logistic regression was performed., Results: Of 1121 consecutive patients, 1092 had available data (mean age, 80.4 years; women, 48.8%; metastases, 51.3%; cancer location: colorectal 21.1%, breast 16.8%, kidney, bladder or urinary tract 14.0%, and prostate 11.4%). The overall prevalence of clinical depression was 28.4% (95% confidence interval, 25.7-31.2). Factors independently associated with clinical depression by multivariate analysis adjusting for all following factors plus gender, and metastasis were impaired mobility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.35; 1.59-3.46), impaired functional status defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥ 2 (aOR, 2.39; 1.66-3.43) or as activities of daily living < 6 (aOR, 2.43; 1.73-3.41), inpatient status (aOR, 1.68; 1.20-2.37), inadequate social support (aOR, 1.66; 1.16-2.37), cognitive impairment (aOR, 1.76; 1.24-2.49), polypharmacy defined as five or more non-antidepressant drugs (aOR, 1.65; 1.14-2.38), multimorbidity (aOR additional CIRS-G point , 1.08; 1.04-1.12), and cancer-related pain (aOR, 1.76; 1.26-2.46)., Conclusion: In older patients with as-yet untreated cancer at various sites and stages, clinical depression was highly prevalent. Clinical depression was independently associated with several geriatric assessment findings (impaired mobility and function, inadequate social support, cognitive impairment, polypharmacy, and multimorbidity) independently from gender, tumor site, and metastatic status., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Mortality prediction is crucial to select the optimal treatment in elderly cancer patients. Our objective was to identify cancer-related factors and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) findings associated with 1-year mortality in elderly inpatients and outpatients with cancer., Methods: We prospectively included patients aged ≥70 years who had solid or hematologic malignancies and in whom the CGA was performed by geriatricians in two French teaching hospitals. We identified independent predictors of 1-year mortality after study inclusion, using multivariate Cox models stratified on inpatient/outpatient status. We built three multivariate Cox models, since strong correlations linked activities of daily living (ADL), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), and timed get-up-and-go test (GUG) results; and since physicians' preferences for these three assessments vary. A sensitivity analysis was performed using multiple imputation., Results: Of the 993 patients (mean age, 80.2 years; 51.2% men), 58.2% were outpatients and 46% had metastatic disease. Colorectal cancer was the most common malignancy (21.4%). Mortality rates after 6 and 12 months were 30.1% and 41.2%, respectively. In all models, tumor site and metastatic status (p < .001), age >80 years (p < .05), higher number of severe comorbidities (p < .05), and malnutrition (p < .001) were associated with death independently from impaired ECOG-PS (p < .001), ADL (p < .001), and GUG (p < .001). The adverse effect of metastatic status differed significantly across tumor sites, being greatest for breast and prostate cancer (p < .001). Multiple imputation produced similar results., Conclusion: The predictors of 1-year mortality identified in our study may help physicians select the optimal cancer-treatment strategy in elderly patients., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cancer is common in older patients, who raise specific treatment challenges due to aging-related, organ-specific physiologic changes and the presence in most cases of comorbidities capable of affecting treatment tolerance and outcomes. Identifying comorbid conditions and physiologic changes due to aging allows oncologists to better assess the risk/benefit ratio and to adjust the treatment accordingly. Conducting a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is one approach developed for this purpose. We reviewed the evidence on the usefulness of CGA for assessing health problems and predicting cancer treatment outcomes, functional decline, morbidity, and mortality in older patients with solid malignancies., Methods: We searched Medline for articles published in English between January 1, 2000 and April 14, 2014, and reporting prospective observational or interventional studies of CGA feasibility or effectiveness in patients aged ≥65 years with solid malignancies. We identified studies with at least 100 patients, a multivariate analysis, and assessments of at least five of the following CGA domains: nutrition, cognition, mood, functional status, mobility and falls, polypharmacy, comorbidities, and social environment., Results: All types of CGA identified a large number of unrecognized health problems capable of interfering with cancer treatment. CGA results influenced 21%-49% of treatment decisions. All CGA domains were associated with chemotoxicity or survival in at least one study. The abnormalities that most often predicted mortality and chemotoxicity were functional impairment, malnutrition, and comorbidities., Conclusion: The CGA uncovers numerous health problems in elderly patients with cancer and can affect treatment decisions. Functional impairment, malnutrition, and comorbidities are independently associated with chemotoxicity and/or survival. Only three randomized published studies evaluated the effectiveness of CGA-linked interventions. Further research into the effectiveness of the CGA in improving patient outcomes is needed.

Background & Aims: We assessed the prevalence and risk factors of malnutrition in elderly cancer patients., Methods: We studied a prospective cohort of solid cancer patients aged ≥70 years at referral to two geriatric oncology clinics between 2007 and 2010. Nutrition was evaluated using the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) using validated cut-offs (<17: malnutrition, 17-23.5: at-risk for malnutrition). Patients with non-digestive tumours (breast, prostate, urinary tract) and with digestive (colorectal, upper digestive tract and liver) were analysed separately using multinomial logistic regression., Results: Of 643 consecutive patients, 519 had available data (median age, 80; men, 48.2%; metastases, 46.3%; digestive cancer 47.8%). In non-digestive group, 13.3% had malnutrition versus 28.6% in digestive group. The link between metastasis and malnutrition was significantly higher in non-digestive group (adjusted odds ratio [ORa ], 25.25; 95%CI: 5.97-106.8) than in digestive group (ORa, 2.59; 1.08-6.24; p for heterogeneity = 0.04). Other factors independently associated with malnutrition were cognitive impairment (ORa MMMSE ≤ 24 versus > 24 in non-digestive group: 16.68; 4.89-56.90 and in digestive group: 3.93; 1.34-11.50), and depressed mood (ORa MiniGDS ≥1 versus <1 in non-digestive group: 11.11; 3.32-37.17 and in digestive group: 3.25; 1.29-8.15) and fall risk (ORa fall risk versus no fall risk in non-digestive group: 4.68; 1.77-12.37; in digestive group: 100% of malnourished patients were faller's)., Conclusion: We highlighted, in elderly cancer patients, the high prevalence of malnutrition and that geriatrics syndromes (i.e. cognitive impairment, depressed mood and fall risk) were independent risk factors for malnutrition. Moreover, metastatic status was significantly much more strongly associated with malnutrition in non-digestive than digestive tumours., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess solid cancer treatment feasibility in older patients., Methods: Between 2007 and 2010, 385 consecutive elderly patients (mean age: 78.9 ± 5.4 years; 47.8% males) with solid malignancies referred to two geriatric oncology clinics were included prospectively. We recorded feasibility of first-line chemotherapy (planned number of cycles in patients without metastases and three to six cycles depending on tumor site in patients with metastases), surgery (patient alive 30 days after successfully performed planned surgical procedure), radiotherapy (planned dose delivered), and hormonal therapy (planned drug dose given), and we recorded overall 1-year survival., Results: Main tumor sites were colorectal (28.6%), breast (23.1%), and prostate (10.9%), and 47% of patients had metastases. Planned cancer treatment was feasible in 65.7% of patients with metastases; this proportion was 59.0% for chemotherapy, 82.6% for surgery, 100% for radiotherapy, and 85.2% for hormonal therapy. In the group without metastases, feasibility proportions were 86.8% overall, 72.4% for chemotherapy, 95.7% for surgery, 96.4% for radiotherapy, and 97.9% for hormonal therapy. Factors independently associated with chemotherapy feasibility were good functional status defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status <2 (p < .0001) or activities of daily living >5 (p = .01), normal mobility defined as no difficulty walking (p = .01) or no fall risk (p = .007), and higher creatinine clearance (p = .04)., Conclusion: Feasibility rates were considerably lower for chemotherapy than for surgery, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. Therefore, utilization of limited geriatric oncology resources may be optimized by preferential referral of elderly cancer patients initially considered for chemotherapy to geriatric oncology clinics.

Background/objective: G-8 screening tool showed good screening properties for identifying vulnerable elderly patients with cancer who would benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). We investigated whether tumour site and metastatic status affected its accuracy., Design: Cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort study., Setting: Geriatric-oncology clinics of two teaching hospitals in the urban area of Paris., Participants: Patients aged 70 or over (n = 518) with breast ( n= 113), colorectal (n = 108), urinary-tract (n = 89), upper gastrointestinal/liver (n = 85), prostate (n = 69), or other cancers (n = 54)., Measurements: Reference standard for diagnosing vulnerability was the presence of at least one abnormal test among the Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Instrumental ADL, Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini Nutritional Assessment, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatrics, Timed Get-Up-and-Go, and Mini-Geriatric Depression Scale. Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios of G-8 scores ≤ 14 were compared according to tumour site and patient characteristics., Results: Median age was 80; 48.2% had metastases. Prevalence of vulnerability and abnormal G-8 score was 84.2% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 81-87.3) and 79.5% (95% CI, 76-83). The G-8 was 86.9% sensitive (95% CI, 83.4-89.9) and 59.8% specific (95% CI, 48.3-70.4). G-8 performance varied significantly (all p values < 0.001) across tumour sites (sensitivity, 65.2% in prostate cancer to 95.1% in upper gastrointestinal/liver cancer; and specificity, 23.1% in colorectal cancer to 95.7% in prostate cancer) and metastatic status (sensitivity and specificity, 93.8% and 53.3% in patients with metastases vs. 79.5% and 63.3% in those without, respectively). Differences remained significant after adjustment on age and performance status., Conclusion: These G-8 accuracy variations across tumour sites should be considered when using G-8 to identify elderly patients with cancer who could benefit from CGA., (© 2013.)

Purpose: To identify Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) components independently associated with changes in planned cancer treatment., Patients and Methods: We prospectively included 375 consecutive elderly patients with cancer (ELCAPA01 study) assessed by geriatricians using the CGA. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with changes in the cancer treatment (intensification, decrease, or delayed > 2 weeks). Change was defined as a difference between the initial treatment proposal and the final treatment selected in a multidisciplinary meeting., Results: Mean age was 79.6 years (standard deviation [SD], 5.6 years), and 197 (52.5%) were women. The most common tumor location was the digestive system (58.7%). The mean number of comorbidities was 4.2 (SD, 2.7) per patient, and the mean Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score was 11.8 (SD, 5.3). After the CGA, the initial cancer treatment plan was modified for 78 (20.8%) of 375 patients (95% CI, 16.8 to 25.3), usually to decrease treatment intensity (63 [80.8%] of 78 patients). By univariate analysis, cancer treatment changes were associated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2 (73.3% in the group with changes v 41.1% in the in the group without changes; P < .001), dependency for one or more activities of daily living (ADL; 59.0% v 24.2%; P < .001), malnutrition (81.8% v 51.2%; P < .001), cognitive impairment (38.5% v 24.9%; P = .023), depression (52.6% v 21.7%; P < .001), and greater number of comorbidities (mean, 4.8 [SD, 2.9] v 4.0 [SD, 2.6]; P = .02). By multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with cancer treatment changes were a lower ADL score (odds ratio [OR], 1.25 per 0.5-point decrease; CI, 1.04 to 1.49; P = .016) and malnutrition (OR, 2.99; CI, 1.36 to 6.58; P = .007)., Conclusion: Functional status assessed by the ADL score and malnutrition were independently associated with changes in cancer treatment.