Limited Impact of Breast Cancer and Non-breast Malignancies on Survival in Older Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Results of a Large, Single-Centre, Population-Based Study

Frequency of use and characterization of frailty assessments in observational studies on older women with breast cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer and frailty frequently co-occur in older women, and frailty status has been shown to predict negative health outcomes. However, the extent to which frailty assessments are utilized in observational research for the older breast cancer population is uncertain. Therefore, the aim of this review was to determine the frequency of use of frailty assessments in studies investigating survival or mortality, and characterize them, concentrating on literature from the past 5 years (2017-2022).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were systematically queried to identify observational studies (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional) published from 2017-2022 that focus on older females (≥ 65 years) diagnosed with breast cancer, and which evaluate survival or mortality outcomes. Independent reviewers assessed the studies for eligibility using Covidence software. Extracted data included characteristics of each study as well as information on study design, study population, frailty assessments, and related health status assessments. Risk of bias was evaluated using the appropriate JBI tool. Information was cleaned, classified, and tabulated into review level summaries.

RESULTS

In total, 9823 studies were screened for inclusion. One-hundred and thirty studies were included in the final synthesis. Only 11 (8.5%) of these studies made use of a frailty assessment, of which 4 (3.1%) quantified frailty levels in their study population, at baseline. Characterization of frailty assessments demonstrated that there is a large variation in terms of frailty definitions and resulting patient classification (i.e., fit, pre-frail, frail). In the four studies that quantified frailty, the percentage of individuals classified as pre-frail and frail ranged from 18% to 29% and 0.7% to 21%, respectively. Identified frailty assessments included the Balducci score, the Geriatric 8 tool, the Adapted Searle Deficits Accumulation Frailty index, the Faurot Frailty index, and the Mian Deficits of Accumulation Frailty Index, among others. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was the most used alternative health status assessment, employed in 56.9% of all 130 studies. Surprisingly, 31.5% of all studies did not make use of any health status assessments.

CONCLUSION

Few observational studies examining mortality or survival outcomes in older women with breast cancer incorporate frailty assessments. Additionally, there is significant variation in definitions of frailty and classification of patients. While comorbidity assessments were more frequently included, the pivotal role of frailty for patient-centered decision-making in clinical practice, especially regarding treatment effectiveness and tolerance, necessitates more deliberate attention. Addressing this oversight more explicitly could enhance our ability to interpret observational research in older cancer patients.

Quality Indicators Compliance and Survival Outcomes in Breast Cancer according to Age in a Certified Center

Age as a breast cancer (BC) prognostic factor remains debatable. Several studies have investigated clinicopathological features at different ages, but few make an age group direct comparison. The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists quality indicators (EUSOMA-QIs) allow a standardized quality assurance of BC diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Our objective was to compare clinicopathological features, compliance to EUSOMA-QIs and BC outcomes in three age groups (≤45 years, 46-69 years, and ≥70 years). Data from 1580 patients with staged 0-IV BC from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed. The minimum standard and desirable target on 19 mandatory and 7 recommended QIs were studied. The 5-year relapse rate, overall survival (OS), and BC-specific survival (BCSS) were also evaluated. No meaningful differences in TNM staging and molecular subtyping classification between age groups were found. On the contrary, disparities in QIs compliance were observed: 73.1% in ≤45 years and 46-69 years women vs. 54% in older patients. No differences in loco-regional or distant progression were observed between age groups. Nevertheless, lower OS was found in older patients due to concurrent non-oncological causes. After survival curves adjustment, we underscored evidence of undertreatment impacting BCSS in ≥70 years women. Despite a unique exception-more invasive G3 tumors in younger patients-no age-specific differences in BC biology impacting outcome were found. Although increased noncompliance in older women, no outcome correlation was observed with QIs noncompliance in any age group. Clinicopathological features and differences in multimodal treatment (not the chronological age) are predictors of lower BCSS.