Geriatric oncology health services research: Cancer and Aging Research Group infrastructure core

The VES-13 and G-8 tools as predictors of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients: A single-center study

Background

Adjuvant hormone treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer is mainly based on aromatase inhibitors. Adverse events associated with such class of drugs are particularly severe in elderly patients. Therefore, we investigated the possibility of ab initio predict which elderly patients could encounter toxicity.

Methods

In light of national and international oncological guidelines recommending the use of screening tests for multidimensional geriatric assessment in elderly patients aged ≥70 years and eligible for active cancer treatment, we assessed whether the Vulnerable Elder Survey (VES)-13 and the Geriatric (G)-8 could be predictors of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors. Seventy-seven consecutive patients aged ≥70 diagnosed with non-metastatic hormone-responsive breast cancer and therefore eligible for adjuvant hormone therapy with aromatase inhibitors, were screened with the VES-13 and the G-8, and underwent a six-monthly clinical and instrumental follow-up in our medical oncology unit, from September 2016 to March 2019 (30 months). Said patients were identified as vulnerable (VES-13 score ≥3 or G-8 score ≤14) and fit (VES-13 score <3 or G-8 score >14). The likelihood of experiencing toxicity is greater among vulnerable patients.

Results

The correlation between the VES-13 or the G-8 tools and the presence of adverse events is equal to 85.7% (p = 0.03). The VES-13 demonstrated 76.9% sensitivity, 90.2% specificity, 80.0% positive predictive value, 88.5% negative predictive value. The G-8 demonstrated 79.2% sensitivity, 88.7% specificity, 76% positive predictive value, 90.4% negative predictive value.

Conclusion

The VES-13 and the G-8 tools could be valuable predictors of the onset of toxicity associated with aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients aged ≥70.

Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions

Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence-based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real-world data.

Aggressiveness of end-of-life cancer care: what happens in clinical practice?

PURPOSE

End-of-life cancer care varies widely, and very few centers evaluate it systematically. Our objective was to assess indicators of the aggressiveness of end-of-life cancer care in clinical practice.

METHODS

An observational, longitudinal, and retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, had a solid tumor, were followed up by the Oncology Department, and had died because of cancer or associated complications during 2017. We used the criteria of Earle et al. (J Clin Oncol 21(6):1133-1138, 2003) to assess the aggressiveness of care. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to characterize factors associated with aggressiveness of therapy.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 684 patients. Eighty-eight patients (12.9%) received anti-cancer treatment during the last 14 days of their lives, and 62 patients (9.1%) started a new treatment line in the last 30 days. During the last month of life, 102 patients (14.9%) visited the ER, 80 patients (11.7%) were hospitalized more than once, and 26 (3.8%) were admitted to the ICU. A total of 326 patients (47.7%) died in the acute care unit. A total of 417 patients (61.0%) were followed by the Palliative Care Unit, and in 54 cases (13.0%), this care started during the last 3 days of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of anti-cancer therapies and health care services in our clinical practice, except for the ICU, did not meet the Earle criteria for high-quality care. Concerning hospice care, more than half of the patients received hospice services before death, although in some cases, this care started close to the time of death.