英国国家观察队列研究调查老年人抗癌全身治疗的耐受性:TOASTIE研究。

BMJ oncology Pub Date : 2024-08-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000459
Mark A Baxter, Michael Rowe, Kieran Zucker, Adam L Peters, Maria Rohan, Alexandra Marsh, Abigail L Gee, Gemma Quesne, Jonny Heseltine, Rachel Prichard, Deborah Scott, Conor O'Neill, Clair Brunner, Joni Howells, Veronica Conteh, Avinash Aujayeb, Xiangfei Yan, Lisa J Rodgers, Sally Martin, Helen Dearden
{"title":"英国国家观察队列研究调查老年人抗癌全身治疗的耐受性:TOASTIE研究。","authors":"Mark A Baxter, Michael Rowe, Kieran Zucker, Adam L Peters, Maria Rohan, Alexandra Marsh, Abigail L Gee, Gemma Quesne, Jonny Heseltine, Rachel Prichard, Deborah Scott, Conor O'Neill, Clair Brunner, Joni Howells, Veronica Conteh, Avinash Aujayeb, Xiangfei Yan, Lisa J Rodgers, Sally Martin, Helen Dearden","doi":"10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) score was developed to predict severe chemotherapy-induced toxicity risk in older adults; validation study results have varied. The Tolerance of Anti-cancer Systemic Therapy in the Elderly study sought to evaluate the CARG score prospectively in a chemotherapy-naïve UK population.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>This multicentre, prospective, observational study recruited patients aged ≥65 years commencing first-line chemotherapy for any solid organ malignancy or setting. Baseline demographics and established frailty measures were recorded. Follow-up data including toxicity and hospital admissions were collected retrospectively. Baseline CARG score predictive ability was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>339 patients were recruited from 19 centres; median age 73 years (range 65-92), 51.9% male and 54.9% gastrointestinal primary. At baseline, 85% of patients were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, with median Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) 3 (range 0-8).314 (92.6%) patients had follow-up data; 69 (22.3%) patients experienced Common Terminology for Cancer Adverse Events grade ≥3 toxicity and 84 (27%) required hospital admission during treatment.Increasing CARG risk groups had increased grade ≥3 toxicity (low 19.6%, medium 22.2%, high 28.2%); however, this was non-significant with no evidence of robust predictive performance. Predictive performance of CFS and ECOG PS was superior to CARG. Importantly, patient and clinician perceptions of toxicity risk differed significantly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In older UK patients with cancer commencing chemotherapy, baseline frailty was prevalent. CARG score did not robustly discriminate or predict high-grade toxicity risk. ECOG and CFS showed superior, although limited, ability to predict and discriminate. This study highlights the need for the development of tools that better predict toxicity in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":72436,"journal":{"name":"BMJ oncology","volume":"3 1","pages":"e000459"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11557722/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"UK national observational cohort study investigating Tolerance of Anti-cancer Systemic Therapy in the Elderly: the TOASTIE study.\",\"authors\":\"Mark A Baxter, Michael Rowe, Kieran Zucker, Adam L Peters, Maria Rohan, Alexandra Marsh, Abigail L Gee, Gemma Quesne, Jonny Heseltine, Rachel Prichard, Deborah Scott, Conor O'Neill, Clair Brunner, Joni Howells, Veronica Conteh, Avinash Aujayeb, Xiangfei Yan, Lisa J Rodgers, Sally Martin, Helen Dearden\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) score was developed to predict severe chemotherapy-induced toxicity risk in older adults; validation study results have varied. The Tolerance of Anti-cancer Systemic Therapy in the Elderly study sought to evaluate the CARG score prospectively in a chemotherapy-naïve UK population.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>This multicentre, prospective, observational study recruited patients aged ≥65 years commencing first-line chemotherapy for any solid organ malignancy or setting. Baseline demographics and established frailty measures were recorded. Follow-up data including toxicity and hospital admissions were collected retrospectively. Baseline CARG score predictive ability was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>339 patients were recruited from 19 centres; median age 73 years (range 65-92), 51.9% male and 54.9% gastrointestinal primary. At baseline, 85% of patients were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, with median Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) 3 (range 0-8).314 (92.6%) patients had follow-up data; 69 (22.3%) patients experienced Common Terminology for Cancer Adverse Events grade ≥3 toxicity and 84 (27%) required hospital admission during treatment.Increasing CARG risk groups had increased grade ≥3 toxicity (low 19.6%, medium 22.2%, high 28.2%); however, this was non-significant with no evidence of robust predictive performance. Predictive performance of CFS and ECOG PS was superior to CARG. Importantly, patient and clinician perceptions of toxicity risk differed significantly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In older UK patients with cancer commencing chemotherapy, baseline frailty was prevalent. CARG score did not robustly discriminate or predict high-grade toxicity risk. ECOG and CFS showed superior, although limited, ability to predict and discriminate. This study highlights the need for the development of tools that better predict toxicity in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ oncology\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"e000459\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11557722/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:建立癌症与衰老研究组(CARG)评分来预测老年人化疗引起的严重毒性风险;验证研究的结果各不相同。老年人抗癌全身治疗耐受性研究旨在对chemotherapy-naïve英国人群的CARG评分进行前瞻性评估。方法和分析:这项多中心、前瞻性、观察性研究招募了年龄≥65岁、因任何实体器官恶性肿瘤或环境而开始一线化疗的患者。记录了基线人口统计数据和既定的虚弱测量指标。回顾性收集随访资料,包括毒性和住院情况。评估基线CARG评分的预测能力。结果:从19个中心招募了339名患者;中位年龄73岁(65-92岁),男性51.9%,胃肠道原发54.9%。基线时,85%的患者为东部肿瘤合作组表现状态(ECOG PS) 0-1, Rockwood临床虚弱量表(CFS)中位数为3(范围0-8).314(92.6%)患者有随访资料;69例(22.3%)患者出现了癌症不良事件通用术语(≥3级毒性),84例(27%)患者在治疗期间需要住院。增加CARG危险组≥3级毒性增加(低19.6%,中22.2%,高28.2%);然而,这是不显著的,没有证据表明有强大的预测性能。CFS和ECOG PS的预测效果优于CARG。重要的是,患者和临床医生对毒性风险的认知存在显著差异。结论:在英国开始化疗的老年癌症患者中,基线虚弱很普遍。CARG评分不能有效区分或预测高级别毒性风险。ECOG和CFS的预测和区分能力虽然有限,但仍有优势。这项研究强调了开发更好地预测这一人群毒性的工具的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

UK national observational cohort study investigating Tolerance of Anti-cancer Systemic Therapy in the Elderly: the TOASTIE study.

UK national observational cohort study investigating Tolerance of Anti-cancer Systemic Therapy in the Elderly: the TOASTIE study.

Objective: The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) score was developed to predict severe chemotherapy-induced toxicity risk in older adults; validation study results have varied. The Tolerance of Anti-cancer Systemic Therapy in the Elderly study sought to evaluate the CARG score prospectively in a chemotherapy-naïve UK population.

Methods and analysis: This multicentre, prospective, observational study recruited patients aged ≥65 years commencing first-line chemotherapy for any solid organ malignancy or setting. Baseline demographics and established frailty measures were recorded. Follow-up data including toxicity and hospital admissions were collected retrospectively. Baseline CARG score predictive ability was assessed.

Results: 339 patients were recruited from 19 centres; median age 73 years (range 65-92), 51.9% male and 54.9% gastrointestinal primary. At baseline, 85% of patients were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, with median Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) 3 (range 0-8).314 (92.6%) patients had follow-up data; 69 (22.3%) patients experienced Common Terminology for Cancer Adverse Events grade ≥3 toxicity and 84 (27%) required hospital admission during treatment.Increasing CARG risk groups had increased grade ≥3 toxicity (low 19.6%, medium 22.2%, high 28.2%); however, this was non-significant with no evidence of robust predictive performance. Predictive performance of CFS and ECOG PS was superior to CARG. Importantly, patient and clinician perceptions of toxicity risk differed significantly.

Conclusions: In older UK patients with cancer commencing chemotherapy, baseline frailty was prevalent. CARG score did not robustly discriminate or predict high-grade toxicity risk. ECOG and CFS showed superior, although limited, ability to predict and discriminate. This study highlights the need for the development of tools that better predict toxicity in this population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信