Geriatrisches Assessment: Warum es für die Therapieentscheidung so wichtig ist

A. Leischker
{"title":"Geriatrisches Assessment: Warum es für die Therapieentscheidung so wichtig ist","authors":"A. Leischker","doi":"10.1159/000529745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer may suffer increased toxicity from intensive chemotherapy. Treatment individualization by geriatric assessment (GA) might improve functional outcome. Methods: We performed a multicenter, phase IV, open label trial in patients ≥70 years with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients underwent GA and were assigned to one of three categories based on their scores: Go-Go, Slow-Go, or Frail. These categories were intended to guide physician's treatment decisions when choosing to treat patients with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (arm A), gemcitabine (arm B), or best supportive care (arm C). Primary objective was a stable (loss of five points or less) Barthel's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score during chemotherapy; secondary endpoints included GA scores during therapy, safety, quality of life, response and survival rates. Results: Thirty-two patients were enrolled in the trial in six centers in Germany (out of 135 planned), resulting in termination due to low recruitment. Fifteen patients were allocated to nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine, fifteen to gemcitabine, and two to best supportive care by their physicians, although according to their GA scores 29 patients (91%) were categorized as Slow-Go and three (9%) as Go-Go. Thus, fifteen of 32 (47%) patients were misclassified and given a course of treatment inconsistent with their GA scores. Median progression-free survival (PFS) were 3.3 months and 9.1 months and median time to quality-of-life deterioration 13 days and 29 days in the nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine and gemcitabine monotherapy arms, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in 11 (78.6%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine and 8 (53.3%) patients in the gemcitabine arm. Conclusions: Clinical evaluations by investigators differed markedly from geriatric assessments, leading to potential overtreatment. In our modest sample size study, those patients undergoing more intensive therapy had a less favorable course.","PeriodicalId":413988,"journal":{"name":"Kompass Onkologie","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kompass Onkologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000529745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer may suffer increased toxicity from intensive chemotherapy. Treatment individualization by geriatric assessment (GA) might improve functional outcome. Methods: We performed a multicenter, phase IV, open label trial in patients ≥70 years with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients underwent GA and were assigned to one of three categories based on their scores: Go-Go, Slow-Go, or Frail. These categories were intended to guide physician's treatment decisions when choosing to treat patients with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (arm A), gemcitabine (arm B), or best supportive care (arm C). Primary objective was a stable (loss of five points or less) Barthel's Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score during chemotherapy; secondary endpoints included GA scores during therapy, safety, quality of life, response and survival rates. Results: Thirty-two patients were enrolled in the trial in six centers in Germany (out of 135 planned), resulting in termination due to low recruitment. Fifteen patients were allocated to nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine, fifteen to gemcitabine, and two to best supportive care by their physicians, although according to their GA scores 29 patients (91%) were categorized as Slow-Go and three (9%) as Go-Go. Thus, fifteen of 32 (47%) patients were misclassified and given a course of treatment inconsistent with their GA scores. Median progression-free survival (PFS) were 3.3 months and 9.1 months and median time to quality-of-life deterioration 13 days and 29 days in the nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine and gemcitabine monotherapy arms, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in 11 (78.6%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine and 8 (53.3%) patients in the gemcitabine arm. Conclusions: Clinical evaluations by investigators differed markedly from geriatric assessments, leading to potential overtreatment. In our modest sample size study, those patients undergoing more intensive therapy had a less favorable course.
为什么这对治疗决定是很重要的
背景:老年转移性胰腺癌患者强化化疗可能会增加其毒性。通过老年评估(GA)进行个体化治疗可能会改善功能预后。方法:我们在≥70岁的转移性胰腺腺癌患者中进行了一项多中心、IV期、开放标签试验。患者接受GA治疗,并根据他们的得分分为三个类别:Go-Go, Slow-Go或虚弱。这些分类旨在指导医生在选择nab-紫杉醇/吉西他滨(A组)、吉西他滨(B组)或最佳支持治疗(C组)治疗患者时的治疗决策。主要目标是在化疗期间稳定(损失5分或更少)Barthel日常生活活动(ADL)评分;次要终点包括治疗期间的GA评分、安全性、生活质量、反应和生存率。结果:在德国的6个中心有32名患者入组(原计划入组135名),由于招募人数少而终止。15名患者被分配到nab-紫杉醇/吉西他滨组,15名患者被分配到吉西他滨组,2名患者被分配到由他们的医生提供的最佳支持治疗组,尽管根据他们的GA评分,29名患者(91%)被分类为Slow-Go, 3名患者(9%)被分类为Go-Go。因此,32例患者中有15例(47%)被错误分类并给予与其GA评分不一致的疗程。nab-紫杉醇/吉西他滨和吉西他滨单药治疗组的中位无进展生存期(PFS)分别为3.3个月和9.1个月,生活质量恶化的中位时间分别为13天和29天。nab-紫杉醇/吉西他滨组有11例(78.6%)患者报告了严重不良事件,吉西他滨组有8例(53.3%)患者报告了严重不良事件。结论:研究者的临床评估与老年评估明显不同,导致潜在的过度治疗。在我们适度的样本量研究中,那些接受强化治疗的患者的病程较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信