Michael Konrad Stahl, Sebastian Willy Ertl, Pouneh Engelmeyer, Hans-Christoph Heuer, Daniel Christian Christoph
{"title":"Impact of Geriatric Assessment on the Tolerability of Combination Chemotherapy in Older Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Matched-Pair Analysis.","authors":"Michael Konrad Stahl, Sebastian Willy Ertl, Pouneh Engelmeyer, Hans-Christoph Heuer, Daniel Christian Christoph","doi":"10.1159/000529097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Because of their individual vulnerabilities, treatment decisions for older patients can be difficult. Geriatric assessment (GA) may help to select patients for systemic treatment, but its value is still unproven. Older cancer patients (≥65 years of age) with and without complex GA followed by discussion in the geriatric-oncologic conference, who had been treated in palliative intention with standard combination chemotherapy at the Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had been orally informed about the treatment options and had chosen chemotherapy beside supportive care. To reduce selection bias, the method of propensity-score matching was performed. Patient groups treated in the years 2011-2013 (without GA, group 1) and in the years 2014-2015 (with GA, group 2) were compared regarding different toxicity endpoints. The primary endpoint of the study was defined as numbers of patients with unplanned admission to the hospital or death during first-line chemotherapy and GA should reduce these events by 15%. Overall, 114 patients were evaluated in both groups. The median age was 74 years. Patients suffered from gastrointestinal carcinomas (47%), lung cancer (28%), breast cancer (12%), and other cancer types (3%). Consequently, most patients were treated with platinum-based (41%), fluoropyrimidine-based (35%), or anthracycline-based (13%) combination chemotherapy. In group 2, the events were numerically lower for all toxicity endpoints. The need for a premature stop of treatment was 54.4% in group 1 compared to 29.8% in group 2 (p < 0.01) and also the treatment-related mortality was significantly lower in group 2 (17.5% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.04). The primary endpoint, the rate of unplanned hospital admission, and death was 49.1% versus 35.1% (difference 14.0%), which did not reach the predefined border of 15%. There was a nonsignificant overall survival benefit in the group with GA (22.6 vs. 18.4 months). GA appears useful to better select older patients with advanced cancer for combination chemotherapy. The significant reduction of mortality during chemotherapy justifies the efforts and costs which need to be expended. To evaluate the effect of GA on overall survival, prospective trials are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":19543,"journal":{"name":"Oncology Research and Treatment","volume":"46 3","pages":"100-105"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncology Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000529097","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Because of their individual vulnerabilities, treatment decisions for older patients can be difficult. Geriatric assessment (GA) may help to select patients for systemic treatment, but its value is still unproven. Older cancer patients (≥65 years of age) with and without complex GA followed by discussion in the geriatric-oncologic conference, who had been treated in palliative intention with standard combination chemotherapy at the Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had been orally informed about the treatment options and had chosen chemotherapy beside supportive care. To reduce selection bias, the method of propensity-score matching was performed. Patient groups treated in the years 2011-2013 (without GA, group 1) and in the years 2014-2015 (with GA, group 2) were compared regarding different toxicity endpoints. The primary endpoint of the study was defined as numbers of patients with unplanned admission to the hospital or death during first-line chemotherapy and GA should reduce these events by 15%. Overall, 114 patients were evaluated in both groups. The median age was 74 years. Patients suffered from gastrointestinal carcinomas (47%), lung cancer (28%), breast cancer (12%), and other cancer types (3%). Consequently, most patients were treated with platinum-based (41%), fluoropyrimidine-based (35%), or anthracycline-based (13%) combination chemotherapy. In group 2, the events were numerically lower for all toxicity endpoints. The need for a premature stop of treatment was 54.4% in group 1 compared to 29.8% in group 2 (p < 0.01) and also the treatment-related mortality was significantly lower in group 2 (17.5% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.04). The primary endpoint, the rate of unplanned hospital admission, and death was 49.1% versus 35.1% (difference 14.0%), which did not reach the predefined border of 15%. There was a nonsignificant overall survival benefit in the group with GA (22.6 vs. 18.4 months). GA appears useful to better select older patients with advanced cancer for combination chemotherapy. The significant reduction of mortality during chemotherapy justifies the efforts and costs which need to be expended. To evaluate the effect of GA on overall survival, prospective trials are required.
期刊介绍:
With the first issue in 2014, the journal ''Onkologie'' has changed its title to ''Oncology Research and Treatment''. By this change, publisher and editor set the scene for the further development of this interdisciplinary journal. The English title makes it clear that the articles are published in English – a logical step for the journal, which is listed in all relevant international databases. For excellent manuscripts, a ''Fast Track'' was introduced: The review is carried out within 2 weeks; after acceptance the papers are published online within 14 days and immediately released as ''Editor’s Choice'' to provide the authors with maximum visibility of their results. Interesting case reports are published in the section ''Novel Insights from Clinical Practice'' which clearly highlights the scientific advances which the report presents.