Search

Simple Summary: The care older patients with cancer receive in Belgium in the last months of life is not well defined. This study aimed to describe healthcare use at the end of life and explore which factors are associated with palliative care. This study shows that older patients with cancer in Belgium have frequent hospital admissions and emergency department visits before death and that more than half of the patients die in the hospital. Furthermore, we demonstrated that patients with limitations in function and cognition at cancer diagnosis receive less palliative care. This study gives insights into the type of care older patients depend on before death and which older patients receive less palliative care. Ultimately, healthcare use in the end-of-life period should be optimized, and palliative care should be made equally available in older patients with cancer. This study aims to describe end-of-life (EOL) care in older patients with cancer and investigate the association between geriatric assessment (GA) results and specialized palliative care (SPC) use. Older patients with a new cancer diagnosis (2009–2015) originally included in a previous multicentric study were selected if they died before the end of follow-up (2019). At the time of cancer diagnosis, patients underwent geriatric screening with Geriatric 8 (G8) followed by GA in case of a G8 score ≤14/17. These data were linked to the cancer registry and healthcare reimbursement data for follow-up. EOL care was assessed in the last three months before death, and associations were analyzed using logistic regression. A total of 3546 deceased older patients with cancer with a median age of 79 years at diagnosis were included. Breast, colon, and lung cancer were the most common diagnoses. In the last three months of life, 76.3% were hospitalized, 49.1% had an emergency department visit, and 43.5% received SPC. In total, 55.0% died in the hospital (38.5% in a non-palliative care unit and 16.4% in a palliative care unit). In multivariable analyses, functional and cognitive impairment at cancer diagnosis was associated with less SPC. Further research on optimizing EOL healthcare utilization and broadening access to SPC is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Background/aim: A prospective non-randomized study was performed on 68 women who had recently undergone curative treatment (surgery +/- adjuvant radio/chemotherapy) for breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients were distributed into 2 subgroups, control (C) group (n=21) and experimental (E) group (n=47). The last group participated in a 12-week rehabilitation program associating physical activity and psychoeducational workshops, including management of stress, diet, and sleep disorders., Results: Despite the initial imbalance between the groups (patients from C group were older and had received less chemotherapy than those from the E group), at the end of the rehabilitation program, we observed a significant improvement in global health feeling and in objective physical tests (distance covered in 6 min and objective measures of ergospirometry), and a decrease in pathological fatigue, while these different items remained quite stable over time in the control group., Conclusion: It is suggested to recommend structured rehabilitation to any patient who does not have a contraindication to it. In addition, the scientific literature encourages us to extend the spectrum of oncological rehabilitation to pathologies other than breast cancer., (Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia (defined as having a FN incidence of 10% or more) and the respective incidence and clinical management of FN in breast cancer and NHL has not been studied in Belgium. The existence of a medical need for G-CSF primary and secondary prophylaxis with these regimens was investigated in a real-life setting., Methods: Nine oncologists and six hematologists from different Belgian general hospitals and university centers were surveyed to collect expert opinion and real-life data (year 2007) on the use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the clinical management of FN in patients aged <65 years with breast cancer or NHL. Data were retrospectively obtained, over a 6-month observation period., Results: The most frequently used regimens in breast cancer patients (n = 161) were FEC (45%), FEC-T (37%) and docetaxel alone (6%). In NHL patients (n = 39), R-CHOP-21 (33%) and R-ACVBP-14 (15%) were mainly used. Without G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP), FN occurred in 31% of breast cancer patients, and 13% had PSN. After G-CSF secondary prophylaxis (SP), 4% experienced further FN events. Only 1 breast cancer patient received PP, and did not experience a severe neutropenic event. Overall, 30% of chemotherapy cycles observed in breast cancer patients were protected by PP/SP. In 10 NHL patients receiving PP, 2 (20%) developed FN, whereas 13 (45%) of the 29 patients without PP developed FN and 3 (10%) PSN. Overall, 55% of chemotherapy cycles observed in NHL patients were protected by PP/SP. Impaired chemotherapy delivery (timing and/or dose) was reported in 40% (breast cancer) and 38% (NHL) of patients developing FN. Based on oncologist expert opinion, hospitalization rates for FN (average length of stay) without and with PP were, respectively, 48% (4.2 days) and 19% (1.5 days). Similar rates were obtained from hematologists., Conclusions: Despite the studied chemotherapy regimens being known to be associated with a moderate or high risk of FN, upfront G-CSF prophylaxis was rarely used. The observed incidence of severe neutropenic events without G-CSF prophylaxis was higher than generally reported in the literature. The impact on medical resources used is sizeable.

Purpose: The 4-year results of this trial demonstrated that a higher dose of epirubicin with cyclophosphamide (HEC) is superior to a lower dose of epirubicin, 60 mg/m(2) (EC), for event-free survival (EFS; 27% reduction), but is not superior to classical oral cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in the adjuvant treatment of node-positive breast cancer. Herein we report the 15-year data on efficacy and long-term toxicity of this three-arm Belgian multicenter trial., Patients and Methods: Between March 1988 and December 1996, 777 eligible patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of CMF, eight cycles of EC, or eight cycles HEC., Results: The 15-year EFS was 45% for patients who received CMF, 39% for patients who received EC, and 50% for patients who received HEC. The hazard ratios (HR) were 0.77 for HEC versus EC (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98; P = .03), 0.90 for HEC versus CMF (P = .39), and 0.86 for EC versus CMF (P = .21). No difference in overall survival (OS) was seen. Cardiac toxicity was more frequent with HEC than with CMF (11 patients v 1 patient; P = .006), but no more than with EC (P = .21)., Conclusion: Treatment with HEC demonstrated superior EFS when compared with lower-dose epirubicin. However, we do not recommend the use of HEC regimen in daily clinical practice, mainly because of the higher risk of cardiotoxicity related to the cumulative doses of epirubicin and the lack of superiority of anthracyclines over CMF in our study.

A randomized adjuvant trial compared tamoxifen 20 mg daily for 5 years with high-dose oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 1 g orally for 9 months. One hundred ninety-four patients with histologically proven primary node-negative breast carcinoma were enrolled between December 1990 and October 1996, with 98 patients randomized into the tamoxifen arm and 96 into the MPA arm. At a median follow-up of 86 months, 25 relapses and 13 deaths were recorded. The relapse-free survival rate at 7 years in the tamoxifen arm was 93%, versus 81% in the MPA arm (P = 0.02). The difference was observed in patients with stage T2 disease (100% in the tamoxifen group vs. 64% in the MPA group; P = 0.01), in younger and/or premenopausal patients (in patients < 50 years of age, 100% in the tamoxifen arm vs. 81% in the MPA arm [P = 0.02], and in patients > or = 50 years of age, 90% in the tamoxifen arm vs. 82% in the MPA arm [P = 0.16]). Also, the overall survival rate at 7 years was lower in women < 50 years of age (P = 0.04).