Stuart M. Lichtman

Predicting Chemotherapy Toxicity in Older Adults With Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Study

PURPOSE Older adults are vulnerable to chemotherapy toxicity; however, there are limited data to identify those at risk. The goals of this study are to identify risk factors for chemotherapy toxicity in older adults and develop a risk stratification schema for chemotherapy toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age ≥ 65 years with cancer from seven institutions completed a prechemotherapy assessment that captured sociodemographics, tumor/treatment variables, laboratory test results, and geriatric assessment variables (function, comorbidity, cognition, psychological state, social activity/support, and nutritional status). Patients were followed through the chemotherapy course to capture grade 3 (severe), grade 4 (life-threatening or disabling), and grade 5 (death) as defined by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS In total, 500 patients with a mean age of 73 years (range, 65 to 91 years) with stage I to IV lung (29%), GI (27%), gynecologic (17%), breast (11%), genitourinary (10%), or other (6%) cancer joined this prospective study. Grade 3 to 5 toxicity occurred in 53% of the patients (39% grade 3, 12% grade 4, 2% grade 5). A predictive model for grade 3 to 5 toxicity was developed that consisted of geriatric assessment variables, laboratory test values, and patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. A scoring system in which the median risk score was 7 (range, 0 to 19) and risk stratification schema (risk score: percent incidence of grade 3 to 5 toxicity) identified older adults at low (0 to 5 points; 30%), intermediate (6 to 9 points; 52%), or high risk (10 to 19 points; 83%) of chemotherapy toxicity (P < .001). CONCLUSION A risk stratification schema can establish the risk of chemotherapy toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment variables independently predicted the risk of toxicity.

Preliminary studies of a novel oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate: capecitabine.

PURPOSE To evaluate the toxicology and pharmacology of an orally active fluoropyrimidine given as a continuous daily dose divided into two portions for 6 weeks, and to determine the maximal-tolerated daily dose (MTD) and the suggested phase II daily dose. PATIENTS AND METHODS Solid-tumor patients with a Karnofsky performance status greater than 70 who had normal organ function and resolution of the effects of prior therapy, and who gave informed written consent, were enrolled. Oral capecitabine, as a divided morning and evening dose, was administered to cohorts of a minimum of 3 patients starting at 110 mg/m2 and escalating by means of a modified Fibonacci scheme to 1,657 mg/m2/d. Pharmacologic samples were obtained on days 1 and 15. Toxicity evaluations were performed approximately every 3 days for the first 43 days. Antitumor effect was evaluated at day 42 of therapy. RESULTS Thirty-three patients entered the study. Few side effects occurred at or below 1,331 mg/m2/d. The MTD was 1,657 mg/m2/d with limiting toxicities of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, nausea, vomiting, vertigo, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia. All toxicities were reversible. A mixed response was seen in one breast cancer patient. Pharmacologic studies showed rapid and extensive metabolism of the parent drug into cytotoxic metabolites with a maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) 1 hour after ingestion. Linear increases in the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and Cmax were seen with linear increases in administered dose. CONCLUSION The suggested phase II dose on a continuous 42-day dosing schedule is 1,331 mg/m2/d. Linear pharmacologic parameters of the parent compound and metabolites are demonstrated.

International Society of Geriatric Oncology Chemotherapy Taskforce: Evaluation of Chemotherapy in Older Patients—An Analysis of the Medical Literature

The elderly comprise the majority of patients with cancer and are the recipients of the greatest amount of chemotherapy. Unfortunately, there is a lack of data to make evidence-based decisions with regard to chemotherapy. This is due to the minimal participation of older patients in clinical trials and that trials have not systematically evaluated chemotherapy. This article reviews the available information with regard to chemotherapy and aging provided by a task force of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Due to the lack of prospective data, the conclusions and recommendations made are a consensus of the participants. Extrapolation of data from younger to older patients is necessary, particularly to those patients older than 80 years, for which data is almost entirely lacking. The classes of drugs reviewed include alkylators, antimetabolites, anthracyclines, taxanes, camptothecins, and epipodophyllotoxins. Clinical trials need to incorporate an analysis of chemotherapy in terms of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of aging. In addition, data already accumulated need to be reanalyzed by age to aid in the management of the older cancer patient.

End Points and Trial Design in Geriatric Oncology Research: A Joint European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology–International Society of Geriatric Oncology Position Article

Selecting the most appropriate end points for clinical trials is important to assess the value of new treatment strategies. Well-established end points for clinical research exist in oncology but may not be as relevant to the older cancer population because of competing risks of death and potentially increased impact of therapy on global functioning and quality of life. This article discusses specific clinical end points and their advantages and disadvantages for older individuals. Randomized or single-arm phase II trials can provide insight into the range of efficacy and toxicity in older populations but ideally need to be confirmed in phase III trials, which are unfortunately often hindered by the severe heterogeneity of the older cancer population, difficulties with selection bias depending on inclusion criteria, physician perception, and barriers in willingness to participate. All clinical trials in oncology should be without an upper age limit to allow entry of eligible older adults. In settings where so-called standard therapy is not feasible, specific trials for older patients with cancer might be required, integrating meaningful measures of outcome. Not all questions can be answered in randomized clinical trials, and large observational cohort studies or registries within the community setting should be established (preferably in parallel to randomized trials) so that treatment patterns across different settings can be compared with impact on outcome. Obligatory integration of a comparable form of geriatric assessment is recommended in future studies, and regulatory organizations such as the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration should require adequate collection of data on efficacy and toxicity of new drugs in fit and frail elderly subpopulations.

Identifying Vulnerable Older Adults with Cancer: Integrating Geriatric Assessment into Oncology Practice

OBJECTIVES: To integrate the principles of geriatric assessment into the care of older patients with cancer in order to identify vulnerable older adults and develop interventions to optimize cancer treatment.

Distress in Older Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE To determine the predictors of distress in older patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age >or= 65 years with a solid tumor or lymphoma completed a questionnaire that addressed these geriatric assessment domains: functional status, comorbidity, psychological state, nutritional status, and social support. Patients self-rated their level of distress on a scale of zero to 10 using a validated screening tool called the Distress Thermometer. The relationship between distress and geriatric assessment scores was examined. RESULTS The geriatric assessment questionnaire was completed by 245 patients (mean age, 76 years; standard deviation [SD], 7 years; range, 65 to 95 years) with cancer (36% stage IV; 71% female). Of these, 87% also completed the Distress Thermometer, with 41% (n = 87) reporting a distress score of >or= 4 on a scale of zero to 10 (mean score, 3; SD, 3; range, zero to 10). Bivariate analyses demonstrated an association between higher distress (>or= 4) and poorer physical function, increased comorbid medical conditions, poor eyesight, inability to complete the questionnaire alone, and requiring more time to complete the questionnaire. In a multivariate regression model based on the significant bivariate findings, poorer physical function (increased need for assistance with instrumental activities of daily living [P = .015] and lower physical function score on the Medical Outcomes Survey [P = .018]) correlated significantly with a higher distress score. CONCLUSION Significant distress was identified in 41% of older patients with cancer. Poorer physical function was the best predictor of distress. Further studies are needed to determine whether interventions that improve or assist with physical functioning can help to decrease distress in older adults with cancer.

A loading dose/continuous infusion schedule of fludarabine phosphate in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Using a loading dose/continuous infusion schedule, fludarabine phosphate was administered to 51 patients with previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). All patients had evidence of active disease, and the majority had advanced Rai stages. Of the 42 patients assessable for response, 22 (52%) achieved a partial response, five (12%) had stable disease, and 15 (36%) progressed. Thirteen of the 22 responders improved their Rai stages with fludarabine therapy, including six patients who achieved stage 0. Response rates for pretreatment stages III and IV were 60% and 53%, respectively. Patients with final Rai stages 0 to II had better survival than those with stages III and IV. Patients who had undergone splenectomy before starting therapy were more likely to respond. Myelosuppression was the primary toxicity and did not appear to be cumulative. Severe leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, although infrequent, were associated with several deaths in the early cycles of treatment. Nonhematologic toxicity was mild with no serious neurotoxicity noted. Infections were common with 22 minor, 18 major, and 10 fatal episodes. Fludarabine phosphate by this alternative dosing schedule is effective in refractory advanced CLL and is well tolerated by the majority of patients.

Geriatric oncology: a field coming of age.

A saying within oncology is: If you’re not a pediatric oncologist, you’re a geriatric oncologist. Maybe while not literally true, this phrase is recognition that all of the subspecialties of oncology are rapidly becoming a field that will be primarily concerned with the care of older patients. While there is not one precise definition of the age of geriatric patients, it is clear that the aging of our society has necessitated a focus on this segment of the population. It has long been recognized that the most significant risk factor for the development of cancer is increasing age. This, together with epidemiologic shifts, has resulted in a marked increase in the number of older patients with cancer, which will markedly increase the cancer burden to the world. It may also compromise the life expectancy, as well as the active life expectancy, of older individuals. Cancer and cancer treatment may appear as several of the prime causes, not only of mortality, but also of disability, in older individuals. The traditional ways in which cancer is studied—by clinical trials focusing on younger, healthier patients—has left us devoid of useful data with which to treat older patients in an evidenced-based fashion. Not only have these earlier trials failed to establish the relative efficacy of cancer treatment in the elderly, but they also were unable to provide information related to the shortand long-term complications of treatment including decline in function. Among the first to recognize this issue was Dr Rosemary Yancik, who in 1983 organized a symposium sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging, which resulted in a monograph, “Perspectives on Prevention and Treatment of Cancer in the Elderly.” The conference reached a number of conclusions and set a research agenda (Tables 1 and 2). In the 1988 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Presidential Address, Dr B.J. Kennedy encouraged the study of aging and cancer. He stated “ . . .our society need not ration how we will treat our disadvantaged members, but should continue to seek those preventive and positive measures that can shorten our later period of morbidity. A very major cancer load will persist well into the 21st century, even if the attempts at prevention are eventually a total success. There is a developing knowledge on aging. Care of the older person needs to be part of medical education and oncology education. Research will help attain a desirable quality of life with aging and a reduced morbidity.” Since that time, studies of older cancer patients have revealed a significant amount of important clinical information. This has included the degree and severity of comorbidity and its effect on treatment, the role of polypharmacy, and the various social and financial problems facing older patients with cancer. The relative and absolute under-representation of older patients in clinical trials has been amply documented. The adverse outcomes of inadequate dosing and supportive care in both curative and palliative treatments have been demonstrated in a number of treatment settings. Even when clinical trials are available, barriers to participation of older patients have been shown to be primarily due to physician reluctance due to fear of toxicity, limited expectation of benefit, or ageism. A number of important strides have been made in the evaluation of older patients through various methodologies of geriatric assessment. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment developed by geriatricians is a multidisciplinary evaluation of the older patient encompassing a number of important clinical domains. Researchers in this area have shown that traditional oncology measures of performance are not adequate in older patients and that geriatric specific measures, such as activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, have a much greater predictive value. Table 1. Prospects for Cancer Control in the Elderly

Prospective Evaluation of the Relationship of Patient Age and Paclitaxel Clinical Pharmacology: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 9762)

PURPOSE To prospectively evaluate the pharmacokinetics and toxicity profile of paclitaxel in relation to patient age in adults > or = 55 years old. PATIENTS AND METHODS Paclitaxel was administered at 175 mg/m2 for 3 hours to 153 patients, 46 of whom were > or = 75 years of age. Pharmacokinetic and toxicity assessments were performed. Data were analyzed by cohort (cohort 1, age 55 to 64 years; cohort 2, age 65 to 74 years; cohort 3, age > or = 75 years). RESULTS Paclitaxel concentration versus time (AUC) and total-body clearance (CL(tb)) data were available for 122 patients (cohort 1, 46 patients; cohort 2, 44 patients; cohort 3, 32 patients). Mean paclitaxel AUC increased across cohorts (P = .01). Mean (SE) AUCs were 22.4 (2.5) micromol/L x hour, 26.2 (2.8) micromol/L x hour, and 31.7 (5.6) micromol/L x hour for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was a corresponding significant (P = .007) age-related decrease in mean (SE) paclitaxel CL(tb) (cohort 1, 11.0 [0.7] L/h/m2; cohort 2, 9.3 [0.6] L/h/m2; cohort 3, 8.2 [0.6] L/h/m2). Patients in cohort 3 experienced significantly lower absolute neutrophil count nadirs than did younger groups (P = .02). There was also a significant increase in percentage of patients with > or = grade 3 neutropenia across age cohorts (cohort 1, 22%; cohort 2, 35%; cohort 3, 49%; P = .006). However, the increased exposure of patients to paclitaxel and increased neutropenia were not reflected in adverse clinical sequelae such as hospitalization for toxicity (P = .82), receiving intravenous antibiotics (P = .21), or experiencing a temperature more than 38 degrees C (P = .45). CONCLUSION Although paclitaxel CL(tb) decreases with increasing patient age, there is great interpatient variability. Cooperative group studies to evaluate the effect of aging on pharmacokinetics are feasible.

Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Study of Erlotinib for Solid Tumors in Patients With Hepatic or Renal Dysfunction: CALGB 60101

PURPOSE We investigated dose and pharmacokinetics of erlotinib in patients with hepatic dysfunction or renal dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were assigned to one of three cohorts: cohort 1, AST > or = 3x upper limit of normal; cohort 2, direct bilirubin of 1 to 7 mg/dL; and cohort 3, creatinine of 1.6 to 5.0 mg/dL. Cohort 1a was amended for albumin less than 2.5 g/dL. Erlotinib was administered orally daily to groups of at least three assessable patients in escalating doses of 50, 75, 100, and 150 mg, starting with 50 mg in hepatic dysfunction patients and 75 mg in renal dysfunction patients. RESULTS Between December 2001 and May 2005, 55 patients were accrued. The distribution of assessable patients was: two of three in cohort 1, three of three in cohort 1a, 16 of 30 in cohort 2, and 18 of 18 in cohort 3. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) consisted of elevation of both total and direct bilirubin 1.5x baseline in three patients (cohort 1: one of five patients at 50 mg; cohort 2: two of six patients at 100 mg). In cohort 2, one of seven patients had DLT at 75 mg. No DLT was encountered in cohort 3 with 12 patients at 150 mg. Apparent oral clearance (mean +/- standard deviation) was cohort dependent as follows: 1.9 +/- 0.2 L/h in cohort 1; 3.7 +/- 4.7 L/h in cohort 1a; 2.4 +/- 1.1 L/h in cohort 2; and 4.5 +/- 2.7 L/h in cohort 3 (Kruskal-Wallis, P < .017). CONCLUSION Patients with renal dysfunction tolerate 150 mg of erlotinib daily and seem to have an erlotinib clearance similar to patients without organ dysfunction. Patients with hepatic dysfunction should be treated at a reduced dose (ie, 75 mg daily) consistent with their reduced clearance.