Search

Background: Limited data are available regarding the use of nab-paclitaxel in older patients with breast cancer. A weekly schedule is recommended, but there is a paucity of evidence regarding the optimal dose. We evaluated the efficacy of two different doses of weekly nab-paclitaxel, with a specific focus on their corresponding impact on patient function, in order to address the lack of data specifically relating to the older population.Methods: EFFECT is an open-label, phase II trial wherein 160 women with advanced breast cancer aged ≥ 65 years were enrolled from 15 institutions within Italy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (arm A) or 125 mg/m2 (arm B) on days 1, 8, and 15 on a 28-day cycle, as first-line treatment for advanced disease. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), wherein an event was defined as disease progression (PD), functional decline (FD), or death. In each arm, the null hypothesis that the median EFS would be ≤ 7 months was tested against a one-sided alternative according to the Brookmeyer Crowley test. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.Results: After a median follow-up of 32.6 months, 140 events were observed in 158 evaluable patients. Median EFS was 8.2 months (90% CI, 5.9-8.9; p = 0.188) in arm A vs 8.3 months (90% CI, 6.2-9.7, p = 0.078) in arm B. Progression-free survival, overall survival, and response rates were similar in both groups. A higher percentage of dose reductions and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) was noted in arm B. The most frequently reported non-haematological AEs were fatigue (grade [G] 2-3 toxicity occurrence in arm A vs B, 43% and 51%, respectively) and peripheral neuropathy (G2-3 arm A vs B, 19% and 38%, respectively).Conclusion: Pre-specified outcomes were similar in both treatment arms. However, 100 mg/m2 was significantly better tolerated with fewer neurotoxicity-related events, representing a more feasible dose to be recommended for older patients with advanced disease.Trial Registration: EudraCT, 2012-002707-18 . Registered on June 4, 2012. NIH ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783222 . Retrospectively registered on May 26, 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Frailty increases the risk of adverse health outcomes and/or dying when exposed to a stressor, and routine frailty assessment is recommended to guide treatment decision. The Balducci frailty criteria (BFC) and Fried frailty criteria (FFC) are commonly used, but these are time consuming. Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) score of ≥7, a simple and resource conserving function-based scoring system, may be used instead. This prospective study evaluates the performance of VES-13 in parallel with BFC and FFC, to identify frailty in elderly patients with early-stage cancer.Methods: Patients aged ≥70 years with early-stage solid tumors were classified as frail/nonfrail based on BFC (≥1 criteria), FFC (≥3 criteria), and VES-13 (score ≥ 7). All patients were assessed for functional decline and death.Results: We evaluated 185 patients. FFC had a 17% frailty rate, whereas BFC and VES-13 both had 25%, with poor concordance seen between the three geriatric tools. FFC (hazard ratio = 1.99, p = .003) and VES-13 (hazard ratio = 2.81, p < .001) strongly discriminated for functional decline, whereas BFC (hazard ratio = 3.29, p < .001) had the highest discriminatory rate for deaths. BFC and VES-13 remained prognostic for overall survival in multivariate analysis correcting for age, tumor type, stage, and systemic treatment.Conclusions: A VES-13 score of ≥7 is a valuable discriminating tool for predicting functional decline or death and can be used as a frailty-screening tool among older cancer patients in centers with limited resources to conduct a comprehensive geriatric assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]