Search

Objective To evaluate the effect of a pretreatment geriatric assessment on the clinical outcomes in older patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) scheduled to receive gemcitabine (GEM)/GEM+nab-paclitaxel (GnP). Patients Older patients with unresectable PDAC scheduled to receive GEM/GnP who visited Kyorin University Hospital and cooperating institutions were enrolled and followed from April 2015 to March 2020. The maximum observation period was two years. All patients underwent a cancer-specific geriatric assessment (CSGA) and optional geriatric assessment (GA) before treatment initiation and two months after the start of treatment. The patients' background characteristics, tumor progression, tumor site, and regimen (GEM/GnP) were examined in a Cox proportional hazards model. The relationship between the overall survival (OS) and GA score was also determined. Eligible patients (age ≥70 years old with histopathologically confirmed unresectable or recurrent PDAC) were scheduled to receive first-line chemotherapy. Results The performance status (PS) and activities of daily living (ADL)/instrumental ADL (IADL) scores at baseline correlated with the OS. Furthermore, even in cases with normal baseline values, lower Frontal Assessment Battery scores and higher Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form scores after treatment initiation were significantly correlated with OS. Conclusion The baseline PS, ADL, and IADL may be prognostic factors in older PDAC patients. In addition, a normal frontal lobe function and depression scores prior to treatment initiation that rapidly worsened during treatment were independently associated with a reduced OS. Selecting appropriate interventions and improving the therapeutic environment may prolong the OS in such patients.

Background: Recommendations from international task forces on geriatric assessment emphasize the need for research including validation of cancer-specific geriatric assessment (C-SGA) tools in oncological settings. This study was to evaluate the feasibility of the SAKK Cancer-Specific Geriatric Assessment (C-SGA) in clinical practice. Methods: A cross sectional study of cancer patients ⩾65 years old (N = 51) with pathologically confirmed cancer presenting for initiation of chemotherapy treatment (07/01/2009-03/31/2011) at two oncology departments in Swiss canton hospitals: Kantonsspital Graubünden (KSGR N = 25), Kantonsspital St. Gallen (KSSG N = 26). Data was collected using three instruments, the SAKK C-SGA plus physician and patient evaluation forms. The SAKK C-SGA includes six measures covering five geriatric assessment domains (comorbidity, function, psychosocial, nutrition, cognition) using a mix of medical record abstraction (MRA) and patient interview. Five individual domains and one overall SAKK C-SGA score were calculated and dichotomized as below/above literature-based cut-offs. The SAKK C-SGA was evaluated by: patient and physician estimated time to complete, ease of completing, and difficult or unanswered questions. Results: Time to complete the patient questionnaire was considered acceptable by almost all (⩾96%) patients and physicians. Patients reported slightly shorter times to complete the questionnaire than physicians (17.33 ± 7.34 vs. 20.59 ± 6.53 minutes, p = 0.02). Both groups rated the patient questionnaire as easy/fairly easy to complete (91% vs. 84% respectively, p = 0.14) with few difficult or unanswered questions. The MRA took on average 8.32 ± 4.72 minutes to complete. Physicians (100%) considered time to complete MRA acceptable, 96% rated it as easy/fairly easy to complete. Individual study site populations differed on health-related characteristics (excellent/good physician-rated general health KSGR 71% vs. KSSG 32%, p = 0.007). The overall mean C-SGA score was 2.4 ± 1.12. Patients at KSGR had lower C-SGA scores (2.00 ± 1.19 vs. 2.81 ± 0.90, p = 0.009) and a smaller proportion (28% vs.65%, p = 0.008) was above the C-SGA cut-off score compared to KSSG. Conclusions: These results suggest the SAKK C-SGA is a feasible practical tool for use in clinical practice. It demonstrated discriminative ability based on objective geriatric assessment measures, but additional investigations on use for clinical decision-making are warranted. The SAKK C-SGA also provides important usable domain information for intervention to optimize outcomes in older cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Evaluation and validation of the psychometric properties of the eight-item modified Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (mMOS-SS). Study Design and Setting: Secondary analyses of data from three populations: Boston breast cancer study (N =660), Los Angeles breast cancer study (N =864), and Medical Outcomes Study (N =1,717). The psychometric evaluation of the eight-item mMOS-SS compared performance across populations and with the original 19-item Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SS). Internal reliability, factor structure, construct validity, and discriminant validity were evaluated using Cronbach''s alpha, principal factor analysis (PFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Spearman and Pearson correlation, t-test and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: mMOS-SS internal reliability was excellent in all three populations. PFA factor loadings were similar across populations; one factor >0.6, well-discriminated two factor (instrumental/emotional social support four items each) >0.5. CFA with a priori two-factor structure yielded consistently adequate model fit (root mean squared errors of approximation 0.054–0.074). mMOS-SS construct and discriminant validity were similar across populations and comparable to MOS-SS. Psychometric properties held when restricted to women aged ≥65 years. Conclusion: The psychometric properties of the eight-item mMOS-SS were excellent and similar to those of the original 19-item instrument. Results support the use of briefer mMOS-SS instrument; better suited to multidimensional geriatric assessments and specifically in older women with breast cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Purpose: To examine five- and ten-year survival based on cancer-specific geriatric assessment (C-SGA) in older women with early stage breast cancer. Methods: We evaluated 660 women ⩾65-years old diagnosed with stage I–IIIA primary breast cancer and attending physician permission to contact in four geographic regions in the United States of America (USA). Data were collected over ten-years of follow-up from consenting women’s medical records, telephone interviews, National Death Index and Social Security Death Index. C-SGA was described by four domains using six measures: socio-demographic (financial resources); clinical (comorbidity, obesity); function (physical function limitations); and psychosocial (general mental health, social support). Survival from all-cause and breast-cancer-specific mortality and receipt of guideline-recommended therapy was assessed for different groups of subjects with C-SGA domain deficits (cut-off ⩾3 deficits). Results: The proportion of women with ⩾3 C-SGA deficits surviving ten-years was consistently statistically significantly lower (all-cause 26% versus 46% and breast-cancer-specific 76% versus 89%, p ⩽0.04). The proportion significantly decreased as number of C-SGA deficits increased (linear trend p <0.0001). Receipt of guideline-recommended therapy decreased with age but not consistently by number of C-SGA deficits. The all-cause and breast-cancer-specific death rate at five- and ten-years was consistently approximately two times higher in women with ⩾3 C-SGA deficits even when fully adjusted for confounding factors (HR5-yrAllCauseFullyAdjusted =1.87 [1.36–2.57], HR10-yrAllCauseFullyAdjusted =1.74 [1.35–2.15], HR5-yrBreastCancerFullyAdjusted =1.95 [1.18–3.20], HR10-yrBreastCancerFullyAdjusted =1.99 [1.21–3.28]). Conclusion: Regardless of age and stage of disease, C-SGA predicts five- and ten-year all-cause and breast-cancer-specific survival in older women. Hence, C-SGA may provide an effective strategy to guide treatment decision-making and to identify risk factors for intervention. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]