Search

Based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCT) assessing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), DOACs have been proposed as alternative to low molecular weight heparin by several international guidelines. However, the proportion of CAT patients who would have not been eligible for such trials is currently unknown. Our primary aim was to assess the proportion of patients seen in clinical practice for acute CAT who would not have been eligible for CARAVAGGIO or HOKUSAI-VTE RCT. Secondary aim was to describe patients outcomes according to eligibility. In a multicenter, observational study, all patients consecutively admitted from January 2017 to December 2019 for an acute CAT event were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified according to the presence or absence of non-inclusion criteria for CARAVAGGIO or HOKUSAI-VTE RCT. Event free survival during a 6-month follow-up were analyzed as secondary endpoints. Among the 302 patients (women: 53 %, mean age: 67.9 ± 13.2) analyzed, 138 (46 %) for HOKUSAI-VTE cancer and 161 (53 %) for CARAVAGGIO met one or more non-inclusion criteria. Main criteria were upper limb and unsual site thrombosis (n = 63, 18.5 %), anemia/thrombopenia (n = 43, 14.2 %), brain tumors (n = 33, 10.9 %), ECOG PS >2 (n = 28, 9.3 %), severe renal failure (n = 16, 5.3 %). At 6 months, the event-free survival rate was not statistically different between the two groups. Almost half of CAT patients would have not been able to participate to a modern DOAC RCT. Evaluation of DOACs safety and efficacy in this subset of patients deserves further research., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 SPLF and Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The capability of ultrahigh dose rate FLASH radiation therapy to generate the FLASH effect has opened the possibility to enhance the therapeutic index of radiation therapy. The contribution of the immune response has frequently been hypothesized to account for a certain fraction of the antitumor efficacy and tumor kill of FLASH but has yet to be rigorously evaluated., Methods and Materials: To investigate the immune response as a potentially important mechanism of the antitumor effect of FLASH, various murine tumor models were grafted either subcutaneously or orthotopically into immunocompetent mice or in moderately and severely immunocompromised mice. Mice were locally irradiated with single dose (20 Gy) or hypofractionated regimens (3 × 8 or 2 × 6 Gy) using FLASH (≥2000 Gy/s) and conventional (CONV) dose rates (0.1 Gy/s), with/without anti-CTLA-4. Tumor growth was monitored over time and immune profiling performed., Results: FLASH and CONV 20 Gy were isoeffective in delaying tumor growth in immunocompetent and moderately immunodeficient hosts and increased tumor doubling time to >14 days versus >7 days in control animals. Similar observations were obtained with a hypofractionated scheme, regardless of the microenvironment (subcutaneous flank vs ortho lungs). Interestingly, in profoundly immunocompromised mice, 20 Gy FLASH retained antitumor activity and significantly increased tumor doubling time to >14 days versus >8 days in control animals, suggesting a possible antitumor mechanism independent of the immune response. Analysis of the tumor microenvironment showed similar immune profiles after both irradiation modalities with significant decrease of lymphoid cells by ∼40% and a corresponding increase of myeloid cells. In addition, FLASH and CONV did not increase transforming growth factor-β1 levels in tumors compared with unirradiated control animals. Furthermore, when a complete and long-lasting antitumor response was obtained (>140 days), both modalities of irradiation were able to generate a long-term immunologic memory response., Conclusions: The present results clearly document that the tumor responses across multiple immunocompetent and immunodeficient mouse models are largely dose rate independent and simultaneously contradict a major role of the immune response in the antitumor efficacy of FLASH. Therefore, our study indicates that FLASH is as potent as CONV in modulating antitumor immune response and can be used as an immunomodulatory agent., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The FLASH effect has been validated in different preclinical experiments with electrons (eFLASH) and protons (pFLASH) operating at an average dose rate above 40 Gy/s. However, no systematic intercomparison of the FLASH effect produced by eFLASHvs. pFLASH has yet been performed and constitutes the aim of the present study., Materials and Methods: The electron eRT6/Oriatron/CHUV/5.5 MeV and proton Gantry1/PSI/170 MeV were used to deliver conventional (0.1 Gy/s eCONV and pCONV) and FLASH (≥110 Gy/s eFLASH and pFLASH) dose rates. Protons were delivered in transmission. Dosimetric and biologic intercomparisons were performed using previously validated dosimetric approaches and experimental murine models., Results: The difference between the average absorbed dose measured at Gantry 1 with PSI reference dosimeters and with CHUV/IRA dosimeters was -1.9 % (0.1 Gy/s) and + 2.5 % (110 Gy/s). The neurocognitive capacity of eFLASH and pFLASH irradiated mice was indistinguishable from the control, while both eCONV and pCONV irradiated cohorts showed cognitive decrements. Complete tumor response was obtained after an ablative dose of 20 Gy delivered with the two beams at CONV and FLASH dose rates. Tumor rejection upon rechallenge indicates that anti-tumor immunity was activated independently of the beam-type and the dose-rate., Conclusion: Despite major differences in the temporal microstructure of proton and electron beams, this study shows that dosimetric standards can be established. Normal brain protection and tumor control were produced by the two beams. More specifically, normal brain protection was achieved when a single dose of 10 Gy was delivered in 90 ms or less, suggesting that the most important physical parameter driving the FLASH sparing effect might be the mean dose rate. In addition, a systemic anti-tumor immunological memory response was observed in mice exposed to high ablative dose of electron and proton delivered at CONV and FLASH dose rate., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Vozenin reports financial support was provided by Varian Medical Systems Inc. Vozenin reports a relationship with Varian Medical Systems Inc that includes: funding grants. the support also apply to D Weber, T Lomax, D Meer, S Psoroulas., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Direct oral anticoagulants against activated factor X and thrombin were the last milestone in thrombosis treatment. Step by step, they replaced antivitamin K and heparins in most of their therapeutic indications. As effective as the previous anticoagulant, the decreased but persistent risk of bleeding while using direct oral anticoagulants has created space for new therapeutics aiming to provide the same efficacy with better safety. On this basis, drug targeting factor XI emerged as an option. In particular, cancer patients might be one of the populations that will most benefit from this technical advance. In this review, after a brief presentation of the different factor IX inhibitors, we explore the potential benefit of this new treatment for cancer patients.

Background: Little evidence is available on the long-term health-care utilisation of older patients with cancer and whether this is associated with geriatric screening results. We aimed to evaluate long-term health-care utilisation among older patients after cancer diagnosis and the association with baseline Geriatric 8 (G8) screening results., Methods: For this retrospective analysis, we included data from three cohort studies for patients (aged ≥70 years) with a new cancer diagnosis who underwent G8 screening between Oct 19, 2009 and Feb 27, 2015, and who survived more than 3 months after G8 screening. The clinical data were linked to cancer registry and health-care reimbursement data for long-term follow-up. The occurrence of outcomes (inpatient hospital admissions, emergency department visits, use of intensive care, contacts with general practitioner [GP], contacts with a specialist, use of home care, and nursing home admissions) was assessed in the 3 years after G8 screening. We assessed the association between outcomes and baseline G8 score (normal score [>14] or abnormal [≤14]) using adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) calculated from Poisson regression and using cumulative incidence calculated as a time-to-event analysis with the Kaplan-Meier method., Findings: 7556 patients had a new cancer diagnosis, of whom 6391 patients (median age 77 years [IQR 74-82]) met inclusion criteria and were included. 4110 (64·3%) of 6391 patients had an abnormal baseline G8 score (≤14 of 17 points). In the first 3 months after G8 screening, health-care utilisation peaked and then decreased over time, with the exception of GP contacts and home care days, which remained high throughout the 3-year follow-up period. Compared with patients with a normal baseline G8 score, patients with an abnormal baseline G8 score had more hospital admissions (aRR 1·20 [95% CI 1·15-1·25]; p<0·0001), hospital days (1·66 [1·64-1·68]; p<0·0001), emergency department visits (1·42 [1·34-1·52]; p<0·0001), intensive care days (1·49 [1·39-1·60]; p<0·0001), general practitioner contacts (1·19 [1·17-1·20]; p<0·0001), home care days (1·59 [1·58-1·60]; p<0·0001), and nursing home admissions (16·7% vs 3·1%; p<0·0001) in the 3-year follow-up period. At 3 years, of the 2281 patients with a normal baseline G8 score, 1421 (62·3%) continued to live at home independently and 503 (22·0%) had died. Of the 4110 patients with an abnormal baseline G8 score, 1057 (25·7%) continued to live at home independently and 2191 (53·3%) had died., Interpretation: An abnormal G8 score at cancer diagnosis was associated with increased health-care utilisation in the subsequent 3 years among patients who survived longer than 3 months., Funding: Stand up to Cancer, the Flemish Cancer Society., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests LD reports a research grant (via their institution) from Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees from Roche; lecture fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Servier, and Sanofi; travel expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, and MSD; and advisory board fees from MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. PRD reports a research grant (via their institution) from Pfizer; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck/Pfizer, and Ipsen; lecture fees from Bayer; travel expenses from Janssen; and owns stock in Alkermes and Biocartis Group NV. GJ reports research grants (via their institution) from Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer; and reports consulting fees, lecture fees, travel expenses, or advisory board fees from Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, Seagen, Medimmune, and Merck. DB reports consulting fees from Incyte and travel expenses from the European Hematology Association, I-Well, Abbvie, and Janssen. JF received advisory board fees or lecture fees (via their institution) from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Janssen. HW received research grants (via their institution) from Roche, Novartis, and Gilead; and received consulting fees, lecture fees, or travel expenses from AbbVie, Daiichi, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, EISAI, Immutep Pty, MSD, AstraZeneca Ireland, and Relay Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study aims to investigate the occurrence of unplanned hospitalizations in older patients with cancer and to determine predictive factors., Methods: A prospective Belgian multicentre (n = 22), observational cohort study was performed. Patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor were included. Patients underwent G8 screening followed by geriatric assessment (GA) if abnormal at baseline and were followed for unplanned hospitalizations at approximately three months. Uni- and multivariable regression models were performed to determine predictive factors associated with unplanned hospitalizations in older patients with an abnormal G8., Results: In total, 7763 patients were included in the current analysis of which 2409 (31%) patients with a normal G8 score and 5354 (69%) with an abnormal G8 score. Patients with an abnormal G8 were hospitalized more frequently than patients with a normal G8 (22.9% versus 12.4%; p < 0.0001). Reasons for unplanned hospitalizations were most frequently cancer related (25.7%) or cancer therapy related (28%). In multivariable analysis, predictive factors for unplanned hospitalizations in older patients with cancer and an abnormal G8 were female gender, absence of surgery, chemotherapy, ADL dependency, malnutrition and presence of comorbidities., Conclusion: Older patients with cancer and an abnormal G8 screening present a higher risk (23%) for unplanned hospitalizations. Predictive factors for these patients were identified and include not only patient and treatment related factors but also GA related factors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aimed to determine the prognostic value of baseline Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) and geriatric assessment (GA) to predict three-month mortality in older patients with cancer undergoing treatment., Methods: Logistic regressions analysed HRQOL, as measured with the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, and geriatric information prognostic for early mortality controlling for oncology variables. The assessment was established with the odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and level of significance set at p < 0.05. Discriminative power was evaluated with area under the curve (AUC)., Results: In total, 6769 patients were included in the study, of whom 1259 (18.60%) died at three months. Our model showed higher odds of early death for patients with lower HRQOL (GHS, OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p < 0.001), a geriatric risk profile (G8 Screening Tool, 1.94, 1.14-3.29; p = 0.014), cognitive decline (Mini Mental State Examination, 1.41, 1.15-1.72; p = 0.001), being at risk for malnutrition (Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form, 1.54, 1.21-1.98; p = 0.001), fatigue (Visual Analogue Scale for Fatigue, 1.45, 1.16-1.82; p = 0.012) and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity index, 1.23, 1.02-1.49; p = 0.033). Additionally, older age, poor ECOG PS and being male increased the odds of early death, although the magnitude differed depending on tumor site and stage, and treatment (all p < 0.05). Predictive accuracy increased with 3.7% when including HRQOL and GA in the model., Conclusion: The results suggest that, in addition to traditional clinical measures, HRQOL and GA provide additional prognostic information for early death, but the odds differ by patient and tumor characteristics., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aims to investigate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at baseline and at follow-up in older patients with cancer and to determine prognostic factors for HRQOL decline., Methods: A prospective Belgian multicentre (n = 22) study was performed. Patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor and abnormal G8 (≤14/17) screening tool were included. Patients underwent geriatric assessment (GA) and HRQOL evaluation with follow up at three months. Uni- and multivariate regression models were performed to determine factors associated (p < .05) with baseline HRQOL and HRQOL decline at follow-up., Results: Results reflect data collected from 3673 patients. A multivariate analysis showed that younger patients, and those with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group - Performance Status (ECOG-PS), specific tumor types (gastrointestinal, gynaecological and thorax) and higher stage had lower baseline HRQOL. In addition worse functional status and presence of pain, fatigue, depression and malnutrition were associated with lower baseline HRQOL. During treatment (n = 2972), improvement in HRQOL was observed in 1037 patients (35%) and a decline in 838 patients (28.2%). In multivariate analysis, stage and presence of baseline comorbidities, pain, fatigue or malnutrition were associated with HRQOL evolution., Conclusion: Baseline HRQOL in older patients with cancer and an abnormal G8 depends on tumor and age related parameters. During follow-up, HRQOL improved in one third of patients, indicating that they may benefit from cancer treatment while one quarter demonstrated a HRQOL decline for which prognostic factors were identified., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Over the past decades, technological advances have transformed radiation therapy (RT) into a precise and powerful treatment for cancer patients. Nevertheless, the treatment of radiation-resistant tumors is still restricted by the dose-limiting normal tissue complications. In this context, FLASH-RT is emerging in the field. Consisting of delivering doses within an extremely short irradiation time, FLASH-RT has been identified as a promising new tool to enhance the differential effect between tumors and normal tissues. Indeed, preclinical studies on various animal models and a veterinarian clinical trial have recently shown that compared to conventional dose-rate RT, FLASH-RT could control tumors while minimizing normal tissue toxicity. In the present review, we summarize the main data supporting the clinical translation of FLASH-RT and explore its feasibility, the key irradiation parameters and the potential technologies needed for a successful clinical translation., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Using the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, we aimed to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes for older cancer patients with a geriatric risk profile, as defined by the geriatric 8 (G8) health screening tool, undergoing treatment. Simultaneously, we assessed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes., Methods: Our analysis included 1424 (G8 ≤ 14) older patients with cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy (n = 683) or surgery (n = 741). Anchor-based methods, linking the GHS score to clinical indicators, were used to determine MCID between baseline and follow-up at 3 months. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) was used to exclude MCID estimates too small for interpretation. Logistic regressions analysed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes., Results: The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS15), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Fatigue and ECOG Performance Status (PS) were selected as clinical anchors. In the surgery group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (5*, 11*), GDS15 (5*, 2) and VAS Fatigue (3, 9*). In the chemotherapy group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (8*, 7*), GDS15 (5, 4) and VAS Fatigue (5, 5*). Estimates with * were > 0.2 SD threshold. Patients experiencing pain or malnutrition (surgery group) or fatigue (chemotherapy group) at baseline showed a significantly stable or improved HRQOL (p < 0.05) after their treatment., Conclusion: The reported MCID for improvement and deterioration depended on the anchor used and treatment received. The estimates can be used to evaluate significant changes in HRQOL and to determine sample sizes in clinical trials.

Background: In the general older population, geriatric assessment (GA)-guided treatment plans can improve overall survival, quality of life and functional status (FS). In GA-related research in geriatric oncology, studies mainly focused on geriatric screening and GA but not on geriatric recommendations, interventions and follow-up. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken in older patients with cancer., Patient and Methods: A prospective Belgian multicenter (N = 22) cohort study included patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor upon oncologic treatment decision. Patients with an abnormal result on the geriatric screening (G8 ≤14/17) underwent GA. Geriatric recommendations were formulated based on GA results. At follow-up the adherence to geriatric recommendations was documented including a description of actions undertaken., Results: From November 2012 till February 2015, G8 screening was carried out in 8451 patients, of which 5838 patients had an abnormal result. Geriatric recommendations data were available for 5631 patients. Geriatric recommendations were made for 4459 patients. Geriatric interventions data were available for 4167 patients. A total of 12 384 geriatric recommendations were made. At least one different geriatric recommendation was implemented in 2874 patients. A dietician, social worker and geriatrician intervened most frequently for problems detected on the nutritional, social and functional domain. A total of 7569 actions were undertaken for a total of 5725 geriatric interventions, most frequently nutritional support and supplements, extended home care and psychological support., Conclusions: This large-scale Belgian study focuses on the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken and contributes to the optimal management of older patients with cancer. We identified the domains for which geriatric recommendations are most frequently made and adhered to, and which referrals to other health care workers and facilities are frequently applied in the multidisciplinary approach of older patients with cancer.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate., Results: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration., Conclusion: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.