Do we protect or discriminate? Representation of senior adults in clinical trials

Comparison of Demographics: National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry and Clinical Trials Data

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the participant demographics in the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials (PRO-ACT) database compared with the web-portal National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Registry (the Registry).

METHODS

Demographics and ALS symptom information were compared between the self-reported registrant data in the Registry web portal (2010-2021) and the latest available PRO-ACT data (updated August 2022), which is a collection of clinical trials data.

RESULTS

Greater percentages of younger (≤ 59 years old) but smaller percentages of older (60 + years old) participants were represented in PRO-ACT compared to Registry. Enrollment for minority race groups was greater in the Registry portal data, but race information was largely missing/unknown in PRO-ACT database. Median age at the time of diagnosis and age at the time of symptom onset were significantly higher for Registry enrollees compared to the participants of PRO-ACT. Symptom onset sites were similarly reported, but duration between self-noted symptom onset and diagnosis was slight, but significantly longer for the Registry enrollees (11 vs. 9 months). Hispanic were as likely as non-Hispanic to participate in research studies, based on the Registry data.

CONCLUSION

There was a notable difference in the age distribution and minority representation of enrollees between the PRO-ACT and Registry study populations. Age distribution in the PRO-ACT database skewed to a younger and less diverse cohort. Despite the clinical heterogeneity and complex disease mechanism of ALS, identifying the underrepresented demographic niche in the PRO-ACT and Registry study populations can help improve patient participation and criteria for patient selection to enhance generalizability.

A scoping review of ageism towards older adults in cancer care

INTRODUCTION

Ageism towards older adults with cancer may impact treatment decisions, healthcare interactions, and shape health/psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this review is twofold: (1) To synthesize the literature on ageism towards older adults with cancer in oncology and (2) To identify interventions that address ageism in the healthcare context applicable to oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted an exhaustive multi-database search, screening 30,926 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we conducted tabular, narrative, and textual synthesis.

RESULTS

We extracted data on 133 papers. Most (n = 44) were expert opinions, reviews, and letters to editors highlighting the negative impacts of ageism, expressing the need for approaches addressing heterogeneity of older adults, and calling for increased clinical trial inclusion for older adults. Qualitative studies (n = 3) described healthcare professionals' perceived influence of age on treatment recommendations, whereas quantitative studies (n = 32) were inconclusive as to whether age-related bias impacted treatment recommendations/outcomes or survival. Intervention studies (n = 54) targeted ageism in pre/post-licensure healthcare professionals and reported participants' improvement in knowledge and/or attitudes towards older adults. No interventions were found that had been implemented in oncology.

DISCUSSION

Concerns relating to ageism in cancer care are consistently described in the literature. Interventions exist to address ageism; however, none have been developed or tested in oncology settings. Addressing ageism in oncology will require integration of geriatric knowledge/interventions to address conscious and unconscious ageist attitudes impacting care and outcomes. Interventions hold promise if tailored for cancer care settings. 249/250.

Quality of life in home-dwelling cancer patients aged 80 years and older: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Quality of Life (QoL) in elderly cancer patients is a topic that has been little explored. This systematic review aims to identify, assess, and report the literature on QoL in home-dwelling cancer patients aged 80 years and older and what QoL instruments have been used.

METHODS

We systematically searched the databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsykINFO, Scopus, Epistemonikos and Cinahl to identify studies of any design measuring QoL among home-dwelling cancer patients aged 80 years and older. We screened the titles and abstracts according to a predefined set of inclusion criteria. Data were systematically extracted into a predesigned data charting form, and descriptively analyzed. The included studies were assessed according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) checklist was used to ensure rigor in conducting our investigations and reporting our findings. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021240170).

RESULTS

We included three studies that specifically analyze QoL outcomes in the subgroup of home-dwelling cancer patients aged 80 years and older, with a total of 833 participants having various cancer diagnoses. 193 of the participants included in these three studies were aged 80 years or more. Different generic and cancer-specific QoL instruments as well as different aims and outcomes were studied. All three studies used a diagnosis-specific instrument, but none of them used an age-specific instrument. Despite heterogeneity in cancer diagnoses, instruments used, and outcomes studied, QoL in home-dwelling cancer patients aged over 80 years old seems to be correlated with age, physical function, comorbidity, living alone, needing at-home care services, being in a poor financial situation and having a small social network.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review revealed only three studies exploring QoL and its determinants in the specific subgroup of home-dwelling cancer patients aged 80 years and over. A gap in the knowledge base has been identified. Future studies of this increasingly important and challenging patient group must be emphasized. Subgroup analyses by age must be performed, and valid age and diagnosis specific QoL instruments must be used to generate evidence in this segment of the population.

Including older patients in cancer trials: A qualitative study of collaboration between geriatricians and oncologists

BACKGROUND

The under-representation of older patients in cancer trials remains an important obstacle to the generation of data on efficacy and safety in this growing patient population. In France, geriatric oncology coordination units (UCOGs) have been created to help oncologists and geriatricians work together on research, best practice, and continuing medical education. Taking these units as a case study, this paper sheds light on the collaboration between geriatricians and oncologists in the inclusion process of older patients in cancer trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Empirical data were gathered in a series of sociological interviews with all 16 oncologists, geriatricians and unit coordinators in the five UCOGs in the greater Paris region of France.

RESULTS

The case of French geriatric oncology coordination units shows the gap between professional research cultures in oncology and geriatrics that may account for the low observed inclusion rates. It is easier to include patients in randomized clinical trials than in observational studies. UCOGs have the potential to improve research in geriatric oncology by catalyzing the development and implementation of effective collaboration tools (such as frailty assessments). The units also have the potential to promote Phase IV trials and observational research that are suitable for older patients with cancer.

DISCUSSION

Bridging the cultural gap between oncologists (the dominant force in setting the cancer research agenda) and geriatricians (a source of specific knowledge and know-how) is essential for producing relevant trial protocols that match the specific yet diverse features of older patient populations.

Are older adults insufficiently included in clinical trials?-An umbrella review

Treatment guidelines are primarily based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs). RCTs tend to some extent to exclude older adults despite the fact that physicians need guidance when treating this patient group. By summarizing existing literature, we aimed to (a) quantify the proportion of RCTs and other clinical studies (CTs) that did not adequately include older adults; (b) identify the main barriers for this non-inclusion; and (c) identify suggested solution for inclusion of older adults in RCTs and other CTs. In this umbrella review, Embase and PubMed were searched for relevant papers, and 2701 papers were identified. The subsequent screening resulted in 22 papers. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program was used as quality assessment tool to evaluate these 22 papers. We found that: (a) The most frequent outcome designating missing inclusion of older adults was the use of age limit as exclusion criterion in studies-the proportion of this was 10%-60%; (b) barriers for inclusion were mainly exclusion criteria, logistic challenges and financial constraints; and (c) more extensive inclusion would require more explicit inclusion criteria, merely application of exclusion criteria when absolutely needed, change of researchers' attitude, further inclusion of supporting relatives to overcome the logistical challenges and more financial funding.

Aging and immunotherapies: New horizons for the golden ages

The life expectancy of the world’s elderly population (65 and older) continues to reach new milestones with older individuals currently comprising greater than 8.5% (617 million) of the world’s population. This percentage is predicted to approach 20% of the world’s population by 2050 (representing 1.6 billion people). Despite this amazing feat, many healthcare systems are not equipped to handle the multitude of diseases that commonly manifest with age, including most types of cancers. As the world’s aging population grows, cancer treatments continue to evolve. Immunotherapies are a new drug class that has revolutionized our ability to treat previously intractable cancers; however, their efficacy in patients with compromised immune systems remains unclear. In this review, we will discuss how aging-associated losses in immune homeostasis impact the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy treatment in preclinical models of aging. We will also discuss how these findings translate to elderly patients receiving immunotherapy treatment for refractory and relapsed cancers, as well as, strategies that could be explored to improve the efficacy of immunotherapies in aged patients.

Factors associated with refusal or acceptance of older patients (≥ 65 years) to provide consent to participate in clinical research in cardiology: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Clinical research is an essential step in the successful translation of knowledge from basic research into concrete clinical applications, yet many people are reluctant to provide consent when actually approached to actively participate in clinical trials.

AIMS

We investigated the factors that influence older patient's (≥ 65 years) decisions to accept or refuse to participate in a prospective randomized clinical trial in secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome.

METHODS

Qualitative approach based on individual semi-structured interviews with patients who were approached for consent to participate in a currently ongoing clinical trial was adopted. Patients were interviewed after the consent process (8 accepted; 8 refused the trial). Interviews were analysed using grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients aged ≥ 65 years participated. The main concept to emerge from these interviews is that the actual trial itself does not appear to be the primary determinant in the decision to participate in clinical research. Rather, patients' decisions to participate (or not) in clinical research appear to be primarily determined by their capacity to deal with the current health event that has disrupted their life, and by their available mental and physical resources.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Older patients display varying levels of engagement in their own health, ranging from low engagement with high trust in the medical profession, to high engagement mirrored by distrust of the medical profession. Structural conditions, such as personal benefit from trial participation, or logistic barriers to participation, seem to affect both accepters and refusers in the same manner.

Effect of age on the effectiveness of the first-line standard of care treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review of observational studies

PURPOSE

Most metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients are elderly. This systematic review identifies and describes observational studies evaluating the influence of age on first-line treatment effectiveness in real-world practice.

METHODS

Medline and EMBASE were searched up to May 2016. The included studies were those that investigated first-line treatment of mCRC and reported age groups and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or overall response rate (ORR) were included. Studies published before 2008 were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were evaluated by age group (< 70 vs. ≥ 70 years; 65-75 vs. ≥ 75 years) and outcome. A pooled survival median was calculated for patients (cutoff = 70 years).

RESULTS

In total, 11 articles with 11,063 patients were included. Four studies using a cutoff of 70 years of age reported OS and PFS, and two studies reported ORRs. In terms of OS, all studies showed a higher OS for those < 70 years of age than for those ≥ 70 years of age. PFS did not find differences by age. For ORRs, one study favoured the younger group, while the second study did not differ by age. Based on three studies, the pooled medians for  < 70 years of age and ≥ 70 years of age were the same for PFS (10.2) and were 27.0 and 22.9 for OS, respectively. All included studies were of high or acceptable quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that age has no effect on PFS. For ORR, the results were inconsistent between studies. Younger patients in general had better OS, which might be partly explained by more aggressive treatment. This treatment seemed not to be guided by performance status or number of metastatic sites.

Older-Patient-Specific Cancer Trials: A Pooled Analysis of 2,277 Patients (A151715)

BACKGROUND

Less than 3% of older patients with cancer are enrolled in clinical trials. To reverse this underrepresentation, we compared older patients enrolled with older-patient-specific trials, defined as those designed for older patients with cancer, with those enrolled in age-unspecified trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We focused on individual patient data from those ≥65 years (younger patients excluded) and included all Alliance phase III adjuvant breast cancer trials from 1985-2012.

RESULTS

Among 2,277 patients, 1,014 had been enrolled to older-patient-specific and 1,263 to age-unspecified trials. The median age (range) in the older-patient-specific trials was 72 (65-89) years compared with 68 (65-84) years in the cohort of older patients in age-unspecified trials; p < .0001. A greater percentage of patients 75 years or older had enrolled in older-patient-specific trials compared with the cohort of age-unspecified trials: 26% versus 6% (p < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-13.7) and 13.5 years (95% CI, 12.9-14.1) for older-patient-specific and age-unspecified trials, respectively. OS was comparable (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.28; p = .34; referent: age-unspecified trials), after adjusting for age, estrogen receptor status, tumor size, and lymph node status. Similar findings were reached for recurrence-free survival. A lower rate of grade 3-5 adverse events (hematologic and nonhematologic) was reported in older-patient-specific trials (43% vs. 58%; p < .0001). Sensitivity analysis with chemotherapy only trials and subset analysis, adjusted for performance score, yielded similar OS results.

CONCLUSION

Older-patient-specific trials appear to address this underrepresentation of older patients with ostensibly comparable outcomes. Clinical trial identification numbers. NCT00003088 (CALGB 9741); NCT00024102 (CALGB 49907); NCT00068601 (CALGB 40401); NCT00005970 (NCCTG N9831) IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This work underscores the importance of clinical trials that focus on the recruitment of older patients with cancer.

ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care: Oesophageal and gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific type of cancer. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe.

OESOPHAGEAL AND GASTRIC

ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALITY CARE: CONCLUSION: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality OG cancer service. The ERQCC expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary units or centres must be guaranteed for all those with OG cancer.

Current systemic therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in older adults: A comprehensive review

Physiological changes that occur during the aging process may impact drug metabolism and availability, consequently affecting treatment efficacy and tolerability. Despite being a disease of older adults, there is little data to guide treatment decisions for older patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The recent approval of many new agents for this disease poses a clinical challenge: how to best utilize these drugs in a population (older adults) who has been generally under-represented in clinical studies. Additionally, the presence of comorbid conditions, polypharmacy, frailty, and lack of social support place this group of patients in a very unique situation. In order to avoid under-treatment, international societies' guidelines recommend routine use of geriatric tools to assess patients' suitability for systemic treatments. Here we provide a thorough review of age-related metabolic differences, safety and efficacy data for each drug approved for mRCC, and cover specific considerations for the management of older adults with this disease.

Exclusion of Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients With Prior Cancer From Clinical Trials: Is This Justified?

BACKGROUND

Strict eligibility criteria are necessary to maintain patient safety and scientific validity in clinical trials. However, this may lead to impaired generalizability of results. As survival in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer relates mainly to the GI malignancy, we hypothesized that previous cancers do not impact on survival and are not a rational exclusion criterion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated with chemotherapy for a GI cancer in 2006 were identified from the electronic patient record at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London. Chart review was performed and patient age, gender, GI cancer stage, prior cancer stage, clinical trial availability/eligibility, and dates of cancer recurrence, death, and last follow-up were collated.

RESULTS

A total of 697 patients were identified. Fifty-four patients (8%) had a prior cancer; commonly breast (26%), prostate (17%), or colon (9%); most were stage I (42%) or II (37%). Two hundred ninety-seven (65%) patients had GI cancer recurrence, 7 (12%) patients had relapse of a prior cancer. Five hundred four (72%) patients have died, 170 (24%) are alive with no cancer, and 23 (3%) patients are alive with cancer. A total of 476 (94%) died of GI cancer, 2 (0.3%) of their prior cancer. Of all patients, 489 (70%) had an available trial, but 30% of patients with a prior cancer were ineligible for this reason. Overall and GI-cancer-specific survival were comparable for patients with/without a prior cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival for patients with a GI cancer requiring chemotherapy relates to the GI cancer and rarely a prior cancer. These patients should not be excluded from clinical trial participation.

Improving the Evidence Base for Treating Older Adults With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a subcommittee to develop recommendations on improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer in response to a critical need identified by the Institute of Medicine. Older adults experience the majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths and make up the majority of cancer survivors. Older adults are also the fastest growing segment of the US population. However, the evidence base for treating this population is sparse, because older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials, and trials designed specifically for older adults are rare. The result is that clinicians have less evidence on how to treat older adults, who represent the majority of patients with cancer. Clinicians and patients are forced to extrapolate from trials conducted in younger, healthier populations when developing treatment plans. This has created a dearth of knowledge regarding the risk of toxicity in the average older patient and about key end points of importance to older adults. ASCO makes five recommendations to improve evidence generation in this population: (1) Use clinical trials to improve the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer, (2) leverage research designs and infrastructure for generating evidence on older adults with cancer, (3) increase US Food and Drug Administration authority to incentivize and require research involving older adults with cancer, (4) increase clinicians' recruitment of older adults with cancer to clinical trials, and (5) use journal policies to improve researchers' reporting on the age distribution and health risk profiles of research participants.

Directed differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cells into chondrogenic lineages for articular cartilage treatment

In recent years, increases in the number of articular cartilage injuries caused by environmental factors or pathological conditions have led to a notable rise in the incidence of premature osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis, considered a disease of civilization, is the leading cause of disability. At present, standard methods for treating damaged articular cartilage, including autologous chondrocyte implantation or microfracture, are short-term solutions with important side effects. Emerging treatments include the use of induced pluripotent stem cells, a technique that could provide a new tool for treatment of joint damage. However, research in this area is still early, and no optimal protocol for transforming induced pluripotent stem cells into chondrocytes has yet been established. Developments in our understanding of cartilage developmental biology, together with the use of modern technologies in the field of tissue engineering, provide an opportunity to create a complete functional model of articular cartilage.