Martine Extermann

Comorbidity and functional status are independent in older cancer patients.

PURPOSE Comorbidity is a frequent and often therapeutically limiting problem in older cancer patients. However, to date, there is no standard measure of the comorbidity burden available for these patients. We tested the performance of two comorbidity scales and their relationship with functional status. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) was compared with the Charlson scale in 203 patients who received a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in our Senior Adult Oncology Program (SAOP). Study end points were variability, reliability, correlation with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL). The relative weight of comorbidity versus tumor stage in the correlations with functional status was assessed. RESULTS Median age was 75 years (range, 63 to 91). Sixty-four percent of patients scored 0 on the Charlson scale versus 6% on the CIRS-G. The correlation between the Charlson and CIRS-G was fair (p = 0.25 to 0.39). CIRS-G grade 3/4 had a fair correlation with ADL (p = 0.27). Otherwise, there was low or no correlation between comorbidity and functional status across the measures. Tumor stage was not correlated with functional status either. Correlation of ECOG PS with ADL (p = 0.51)c and IADL (p = 0.61) was moderate. Interrater and test-retest correlations were good or very good for both the Charlson and CIRS-G. CONCLUSION Comorbidity needs to be assessed independently from functional status. Both the Charlson and CIRS-G scales are reliable tools for use in trials of older cancer patients. Both can be tested in further studies as predictors of outcomes such as toxicity of treatment, changes in functional status, or survival.

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients with cancer.

PURPOSE During the last decade, oncologists and geriatricians have begun to work together to integrate the principles of geriatrics into oncology care. The increasing use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is one example of this effort. A CGA includes an evaluation of an older individuals functional status, comorbid medical conditions, cognition, nutritional status, psychological state, and social support; and a review of the patients medications. This article discusses recent advances on the use of a CGA in older patients with cancer. METHODS In this article, we provide an update on the studies that address the domains of a geriatric assessment applied to the oncology patient, review the results of the first studies evaluating the use of a CGA in developing interventions to improve the care of older adults with cancer, and discuss future research directions. RESULTS The evidence from recent studies demonstrates that a CGA can predict morbidity and mortality in older patients with cancer. Accumulating data show the benefits of incorporating a CGA in the evaluation of older patients with cancer. Prospective trials evaluating the utility of a CGA to guide interventions to improve the quality of cancer care in older adults are justified. CONCLUSION Growing evidence demonstrates that the variables examined in a CGA can predict morbidity and mortality in older patients with cancer, and uncover problems relevant to cancer care that would otherwise go unrecognized.

Predicting the risk of chemotherapy toxicity in older patients: The Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High‐Age Patients (CRASH) score

Tools are lacking to assess the individual risk of severe toxicity from chemotherapy. Such tools would be especially useful for older patients, who vary considerably in terms of health status and functional reserve.

Measuring comorbidity in older cancer patients.

The aim of this article was to provide oncology researchers with adequate tools and practical advice to integrate comorbidity into clinical studies. Open research questions are also discussed. Commonly used comorbidity indexes were identified and a detailed literature search was done by MEDLINE and cross-referencing. Expert opinion was sought on each index. A common scheme exploring the description of the index, clinical experience, metrological performance, easiness of use, cross-compatibility and preservation of data was followed. The actual indexes are included in the Appendix. Four commonly used indexes were identified: the Charlson Comorbidity Index (Charlson), the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), the Index of Coexistent Disease (ICED), and the Kaplan-Feinstein index. The Charlson is the most commonly used whereas the performance of the first two indexes is best characterised. Most studies are retrospective and focus on mortality as an outcome and a base of grading. All indexes are easy to use and require a maximum of 10 min to be filled. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability is generally good. Little is known about other outcomes and the way various diseases cumulate in influencing prognosis. Thus, several reliable indexes are available to measure comorbidity in cancer patients. They show that globally comorbidity is a strong predictor of outcome. Since little is still known about the importance of individual comorbidities for various outcomes and the way comorbidity cumulates in influencing cancer treatment, a wide integration of comorbidity in prospective studies is essential.

International Society of Geriatric Oncology Consensus on Geriatric Assessment in Older Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. METHODS SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment–related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care. RESULTS GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another. CONCLUSION There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.

Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase contributes to tumor cell evasion of T cell-mediated rejection.

The priming of an appropriate anti‐tumor T cell response rarely results in the rejection of established tumors. The characteristics of tumors that allow them to evade a T cell‐mediated rejection are unknown for many tumors. We report on evidence that the expression of the immunosuppressive enzyme, indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase (IDO) by mononuclear cells that invade tumors and tumor‐draining lymph nodes, is 1 mechanism that may account for this observation. Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) cells stimulated a more robust allogeneic T cell response in vitro in the presence of a competitive inhibitor of IDO, 1‐methyl tryptophan. When administered in vivo this inhibitor also resulted in delayed LLC tumor growth in syngeneic mice. Our study provides evidence for a novel mechanism whereby tumors evade rejection by the immune system, and suggests the possibility that inhibiting IDO may be developed as an anti‐cancer immunotherapeutic strategy.

Management of breast cancer in elderly individuals: recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer mortality in women worldwide. Elderly individuals make up a large part of the breast cancer population, and there are important specific considerations for this population. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology created a task force to assess the available evidence on breast cancer in elderly individuals, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in such individuals. A review of the published work was done with the results of a search on Medline for English-language articles published between 1990 and 2007 and of abstracts from key international conferences. Recommendations are given on the topics of screening, surgery, radiotherapy, (neo)adjuvant hormone treatment and chemotherapy, and metastatic disease. Since large randomised trials in elderly patients with breast cancer are scarce, there is little level I evidence for the treatment of such patients. The available evidence was reviewed and synthesised to provide consensus recommendations regarding the care of breast cancer in older adults.

Measurement and impact of comorbidity in older cancer patients

As the world population ages, oncologists are increasingly confronted with the problem of comorbidity in cancer patients. This has stemmed an increasing interest into approaching comorbidity in a systematic way, in order to integrate it in treatment decisions. So far, data on the subject have been widely scattered through the medical literature. This article is aimed at reviewing the available data on the interaction of comorbidity and prognosis. This overview should provide an accessible source of references for oncological investigators developing research in the field. Various methods have been used to sum comorbidity. However, a major effort remains to be done to analyze how various diseases combine in influencing prognosis. The main end-point explored so far is mortality, with which comorbidity globally is reliably correlated. A largely open challenge remains to correlate comorbidity with treatment tolerance, and functional and quality of life outcomes, as well as to integrate it in clinical decision-making.

A comprehensive geriatric intervention detects multiple problems in older breast cancer patients

UNLABELLED Studies of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) have shown the importance of follow-up for effectiveness, but this has not been tested in an oncology clinic. In this pilot study, we enrolled 15 early breast cancer patients, aged 70 and older. They received a multidisciplinary CGA every 3 months and structured follow-up from the SAOP nurse practitioner, dietitian, social worker, and pharmacist according to risk. Total follow-up was 6 months. Median age of evaluable patients was 79 years (range 72-87). Median number of comorbidities by Cumulative Index Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) was 5 (3-9) at baseline. Ten patients were at pharmacological risk, five at psychosocial risk, and eight at nutritional risk. Patients presented on average six problems initially, and three new problems during follow-up. The intervention directly influenced oncological treatment in four cases. It ensured continuity/coordination of care in seven cases. Success rate in addressing problems was 87%. Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Breast (FACT-B) scores improved from 110.5 (S.D. 16.7) to 116.3 (S.D. 16.5) (t=0.025). Function and independence were maintained. CONCLUSIONS Older patients with early breast cancer have a high prevalence of comorbidity. A CGA with follow-up has potential for improving the treatment and prognosis of these patients and is feasible in an academic oncology setting.

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.