Jean-Pierre Lobelle

Performance of Two Geriatric Screening Tools in Older Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic characteristics of two geriatric screening tools (G8 and Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool [fTRST]) to identify patients with a geriatric risk profile and to evaluate their prognostic value for functional decline and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients ≥ 70 years old with a malignant tumor were included if a new cancer event occurred requiring treatment decision. Geriatric screening with G8 and fTRST (cutoff ≥ 1 [fTRST (1)] and ≥ 2 [fTRST (2)] evaluated) was performed in all patients, as well as a geriatric assessment (GA) evaluating social situation, functionality (activities of daily living [ADL] + instrumental activities of daily living [IADL]), cognition, depression, and nutrition. Functionality was re-evaluated 2 to 3 months after cancer treatment decision, and death rate was followed. Functional decline and OS were evaluated in relation to normal versus abnormal score on both screening tools. RESULTS Nine hundred thirty-seven patients were included (October 2009 to July 2011). G8 and fTRST (1) showed high sensitivity (86.5% to 91.3%) and moderate negative predictive value (61.3% to 63.4%) to detect patients with a geriatric risk profile. G8 and fTRST (1) were strongly prognostic for functional decline on ADL and IADL, and G8, fTRST (1), and fTRST (2) were prognostic for OS (all P < .001). G8 had the strongest prognostic value for OS (hazard ratio for G8 normal v abnormal, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.52). CONCLUSION Both geriatric screening tools, G8 and fTRST, are simple and useful instruments in older patients with cancer for identifying patients with a geriatric risk profile and have a strong prognostic value for functional decline and OS.

Atropine, Hyoscine Butylbromide, or Scopolamine Are Equally Effective for the Treatment of Death Rattle in Terminal Care

Death rattle is a frequent symptom (25%-50%) in the terminal stage of life, but there is neither standardized treatment nor prospective investigation performed on the effectiveness of anticholinergic drugs. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of three different anticholinergic drugs in the treatment of death rattle in the terminal stage of life. Terminal patients who developed death rattle were randomly assigned 0.5mg atropine, 20mg hyoscine butylbromide, or 0.25mg scopolamine. Each treatment was initiated with a subcutaneous bolus, which was followed by continuous administration of the same drug. The intensity of death rattle and side effects were prospectively scored at different time points. Three hundred and thirty-three eligible patients were randomized to atropine, hyoscine butylbromide, or scopolamine after informed consent from the patient or the appointed representative. For the three drugs, death rattle decreased to a nondisturbing intensity or disappeared after one hour in 42%, 42%, and 37% of cases, respectively (P=0.72). Further, effectiveness improved over time without significant differences among the treatment groups (effectiveness at 24 hours was 76%, 60%, and 68%, respectively). In an analysis on the three groups together, treatment was more effective when started at a lower initial rattle intensity; median survival after start of therapy was 23.9 hours. These data suggest that there are no significant differences in effectiveness or survival time among atropine, hyoscine butylbromide, and scopolamine in the treatment of death rattle.

Implementation of geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: A multicentre prospective study.

PURPOSE The main objective of this study was to describe geriatric recommendations based on a geriatric assessment (GA) and to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS A two-step approach of screening followed by a GA was implemented in nine hospitals in Belgium. Patients ≥ 70 years were included at diagnosis or at disease progression/relapse. Concrete geriatric recommendations were systematically documented and reported to the treating physicians and consisted of referrals to professional health care workers. Patient charts were reviewed after one month to verify which geriatric recommendations have been performed. RESULTS From August 2011 to July 2012, 1550 patients were included for analysis. The median age was 77 (range: 70-97) and 57.0% were female. A solid tumour was diagnosed in 91.4% and a haematological malignancy in 8.6%. Geriatric screening with the G8 identified 63.6% of the patients for GA (n=986). A median of two geriatric recommendations (range: 1-6) were given for 76.2% (95%CI: 73.4-78.8) of the evaluable patients (n=710). A median of one geriatric recommendation (range: 1-5) was performed in 52.1% (95%CI: 48.4-55.8) of the evaluable patients (n=689). In general, 460 or 35.3% (95%CI: 32.8-38.0) of all the geriatric recommendations were performed. Geriatric recommendations most frequently consisted of referrals to the dietician (60.4%), social worker (40.3%), and psychologist (28.9%). CONCLUSION This implementation study provides insight into GA-based recommendations/interventions in daily oncology practice. Geriatric recommendations were given in about three-fourths of patients. About one-third of all geriatric recommendations were performed in approximately half of these patients.

Functional decline in older patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy: A multicenter prospective study

OBJECTIVES This study aims to evaluate the evolution of functional status (FS) 2 to 3months after initiation of chemotherapy, to identify factors associated with functional decline during chemotherapy treatment and to investigate the prognostic value of functional decline for overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients ≥70years with a malignant tumor were included when chemotherapy was initiated. All patients underwent a geriatric assessment (GA) including FS measured by Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL). FS of patients was followed by repeating ADL and IADL to identify functional decline. RESULTS From 10/2009 until 07/2011, 439 patients were included. At follow-up, ADL and IADL data were available for 387 patients. Functional decline in ADL and IADL was observed in 19.9% and 41.3% of the patients respectively. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, baseline factors associated with decline in ADL are abnormal nutritional status (OR:2.02) and IADL dependency (OR:1.76). Oncological setting (disease progression/relapse vs new diagnosis) (OR:0.59) is the only determinant of decline in IADL. Functional decline in ADL is strongly prognostic for OS (logrank p-value<.0001; Wilcoxon p-value<.0001) with HR 2.34 and functional decline in IADL is also prognostic for OS but less prominent with HR 1.25. CONCLUSIONS Functional decline occurs in about a third of older patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and is associated with GA components. It strongly predicts survival, the most prominent for ADL. This knowledge can be used to identify older persons with cancer receiving chemotherapy eligible for interventions to prevent functional decline.

Value of geriatric screening and assessment in predicting postoperative complications in patients older than 70 years undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES This study examines the association between geriatric screening and geriatric assessment (GA) and the risk of 30-day postoperative complications (30d-POCs) in older patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database (2009-2015). All patients underwent geriatric screening with the G8 screening tool and the Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST). The patients with an abnormal G8 score (G8≤14) received a GA, including living situation, basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL and I-ADL), falls, fatigue, cognition, depression, nutrition, comorbidities, and polypharmacy. 30d-POCs were retrospectively collected from the medical records and classified into Clavien-Dindo severity grades. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of Clavien-Dindo grade 2 and above (CD≥2) 30d-POCs. To identify predictive variables, logistic regression analyses were used. RESULTS 190 patients, aged ≥70years, were included. Seventy-eight (41.1%) had CD≥2 30d-POCs, and the 30-day mortality was 1.6%. In univariable logistic regressions, the following variables were associated with CD≥2 30d-POCs (PWald<0.05): age, G8, ECOG-performance status (ECOG-PS), tumor location, and surgical approach. Age and surgical approach independently predicted 30d-POCs. In the G8≤14 patients (receiving a complete GA, n=115), ADL was the only GA variable associated with CD≥2 30d-POCs. CONCLUSION In this study examining the predictive value of geriatric screening and GA in predicting CD≥2 30d-POCs, the G8 screening tool was associated in univariable analysis, but did not remain in multivariable analysis. In the G8≤14 group receiving GA, ADL was the only predictive GA variable.

The prognostic value of 3 commonly measured blood parameters and geriatric assessment to predict overall survival in addition to clinical information in older patients with cancer: Laboratory Values and GA for Prognosis

The current study was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of laboratory parameters and geriatric assessment (GA) in addition to a baseline model with clinical information regarding overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer.

The added value of geriatric screening and assessment for predicting overall survival in older patients with cancer: GA Added to Clinical Information for OS

The aim of this study was to determine and compare the added prognostic value of screening tools, geriatric assessment (GA) components, and GA summaries to clinical information for overall survival (OS) in older patients with cancer.

Corrigendum to "Implementation of geriatric assessment-based recommendations in older patients with cancer: A multicenter prospective study" [J. Geriatr. Oncol. 6 (2015) 401-410].

The authors regret: A calculation error was corrected in Table 3. As mentioned under the table, the percentage of patients under ‘Baseline’ was calculated from the total no. of patients with geriatric recommendations data (n = 932 pts). This was mistakenly calculated from the number of patients with available GA data (n = 979). Percentages have been recalculated. The corrected table is reproduced here (Table 3). We emphasize that these percentages are not mentioned in the text of the paper nor do they change any of the conclusions. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.