The predictive ability of timed “Up & Go”, VES-13 and GFI in hepato-pancreato-biliary onco-geriatric surgical patients

Immunotherapy use in older adults with cancer with frailty: A young SIOG review paper

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) became a treatment option in most tumor types and improved survival in patients with cancer in the last decade. Older patients with cancer are underrepresented in the pivotal clinical trials with ICIs. Older patients with cancer often have significant comorbidities and geriatric syndromes like frailty, which can complicate cancer care and treatment decisions. Frailty is among the most prevalent geriatric syndromes in patients with cancer and could lead to inferior survival and a higher risk of complications in patients treated with chemotherapy. However, the effect of frailty on the efficacy and safety of ICIs is understudied. This review focuses on the available evidence regarding the association between frailty and ICI efficacy and safety. Although the survival benefits of ICIs have generally been shown to be independent of age, the available real-world data has generally suggested higher rates of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and treatment discontinuation in older patients. While international organizations recommend conducting a comprehensive geriatric assessment CGA to assess and address frailty before the start of anti-cancer therapies, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or higher is frequently used in clinical practice as synonymous with frailty, albeit with significant limitations. The available data has generally demonstrated diminished ICI efficacy in patients with an ECOG 2 or higher compared to patients with better performance status, while the incidence of high-grade irAEs were similar. Whilst evidence regarding outcomes with ICI in older patients and in those with sub-optimal performance status is growing, there is very limited data specifically evaluating the role of frailty with ICIs. These studies found a shortened overall survival, yet no evidence of a lower response rate to ICIs. These patients experienced more AEs, but they did not necessarily have a higher incidence of irAEs.

[Proposed development of a geriatric oncology unit. Times of change: Our reality]

Age is one of the main risk factors for the development of cancer. It is expected that the progressive aging of the population will have an unprecedented impact on the incidence of various tumours. In fact, the management of elderly cancer patients is already a major public health problem in developed countries. However, elderly patients have systematically been excluded from cancer drug studies or protocol development. This has left health professionals in uncharted territory, without proper tools to address the multiple difficulties that arise in the treatment of these patients. A comprehensive geriatric assessment may serve as an ideal tool for the correct detection of hidden problems, facilitating treatment decisions in these complex patients, and integrating the care of patients with comorbidities.

Six screening instruments for frailty in older patients qualified for emergency abdominal surgery

INTRODUCTION

The literature on geriatric assessment in emergency admitted patients is scarce, particularly there are no studies regarding the efficacy of frailty screening tests among patients qualified for emergency abdominal surgery. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of six screening instruments in this group of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The diagnostic accuracy of the Vulnerable Elderly Survey (VES-13), Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST), Geriatric-8 (G8), Groningen Frailty Index (GFI), Rockwood, Balducci score was evaluated in a prospective group of 184 consecutive patients ≥65 years of age. Outcome measure was sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of these tests in prediciting 30-day postoperative outcome.

RESULTS

Patients mean age was 76.9±5.8 (65-100) years. The prevalence of frailty, as diagnosed by screening methods, was: 50-79.9% (Balducci/Rockwood-G8). Multivariate analyses have identified all screening tests apart from Rockwood and TRST as independent factors that predict postoperative outcome. The sensitivity and negative predictive value in case of postoperative mortality were 60-91% (Rockwood-VES-13) and 30-93% (GFI-VES13). In case of postoperative morbidity they were 52-85% (Rockwood-VES-13 and G8) and 44-70% (Rockwood-VES-13), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Considering these results, it is possible to perform safely and efficiently screening test for frailty in older patients qualified for emergency abdominal surgery. The VES-13 was the best screening instrument; it had the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value both for the postoperative mortality and morbidity. This instrument may offer physicians additional information that can be used in the postoperative optimisation of the treatment of these high-risk group of patients.

Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendations†

BACKGROUND

Screening tools are proposed to identify those older cancer patients in need of geriatric assessment (GA) and multidisciplinary approach. We aimed to update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on the use of screening tools.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SIOG composed a task group to review, interpret and discuss evidence on the use of screening tools in older cancer patients. A systematic review was carried out and discussed by an expert panel, leading to a consensus statement on their use.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies reporting on the use of 17 different screening tools in older cancer patients were identified. The tools most studied in older cancer patients are G8, Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST) and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13). Across all studies, the highest sensitivity was observed for: G8, fTRST, Oncogeriatric screen, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status, Senior Adult Oncology Program (SAOP) 2 screening and Gerhematolim. In 11 direct comparisons for detecting problems on a full GA, the G8 was more or equally sensitive than other instruments in all six comparisons, whereas results were mixed for the VES-13 in seven comparisons. In addition, different tools have demonstrated associations with outcome measures, including G8 and VES-13.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening tools do not replace GA but are recommended in a busy practice in order to identify those patients in need of full GA. If abnormal, screening should be followed by GA and guided multidisciplinary interventions. Several tools are available with different performance for various parameters (including sensitivity for addressing the need for further GA). Further research should focus on the ability of screening tools to build clinical pathways and to predict different outcome parameters.