PURPOSE: This study analyzed the current approaches for rectal cancer treatment in elderly patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 240 rectal cancer patients who had undergone radiotherapy from 2000 to 2008. The ages of the patients ranged from 65 and 75 years (group A, n = 127) and older than 75 years (group B, n = 113). The distribution of the Charlson comorbidity index was similar between the two groups, but the ECOG performance status (PS) differed between the groups (66 % of the patients of group A were PS 0, and 40 % were PS 0 in group B (p < 0.0001)). The tumor stages were comparable between groups. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 74.3 years (range 65-90.6). Treatment was discussed during a multidisciplinary cancer team meeting before treatment for 55 % of the cases in group A and 73 % of the cases in group B (p < 0.001), and treatment proposals were in accordance with guidelines in 96 % of the cases in group A and 76 % of the cases in group B (p < 0.001). Group B patients received slightly less concurrent chemotherapy (35 vs. 30 % for group A; p = 0.54), more hypofractionated radiotherapy (41 vs. 54 % for group A; p = 0.064), less surgery (92 vs. 80 % for group A; p = 0.014), and less adjuvant chemotherapy (34 vs. 10 % for group A; p < 0.001). Finally, 80 % of the patients in group A and 60 % of the patients in group B received treatment in accordance with guidelines (p = 0.007) and in the logistic regression model. Non-metastatic patients who were aged below 75 years were predicted for conformal management (HR = 0.323; 95 % CI = 0.152-0.684) irrespective of their performance status, comorbidity, or disease stage. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment proposals and administered therapy differed according to age.
PURPOSE: This study analyzed the current approaches for rectal cancer treatment in elderly patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 240 rectal cancerpatients who had undergone radiotherapy from 2000 to 2008. The ages of the patients ranged from 65 and 75 years (group A, n = 127) and older than 75 years (group B, n = 113). The distribution of the Charlson comorbidity index was similar between the two groups, but the ECOG performance status (PS) differed between the groups (66 % of the patients of group A were PS 0, and 40 % were PS 0 in group B (p < 0.0001)). The tumor stages were comparable between groups. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 74.3 years (range 65-90.6). Treatment was discussed during a multidisciplinary cancer team meeting before treatment for 55 % of the cases in group A and 73 % of the cases in group B (p < 0.001), and treatment proposals were in accordance with guidelines in 96 % of the cases in group A and 76 % of the cases in group B (p < 0.001). Group B patients received slightly less concurrent chemotherapy (35 vs. 30 % for group A; p = 0.54), more hypofractionated radiotherapy (41 vs. 54 % for group A; p = 0.064), less surgery (92 vs. 80 % for group A; p = 0.014), and less adjuvant chemotherapy (34 vs. 10 % for group A; p < 0.001). Finally, 80 % of the patients in group A and 60 % of the patients in group B received treatment in accordance with guidelines (p = 0.007) and in the logistic regression model. Non-metastatic patients who were aged below 75 years were predicted for conformal management (HR = 0.323; 95 % CI = 0.152-0.684) irrespective of their performance status, comorbidity, or disease stage. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment proposals and administered therapy differed according to age.
Authors: V E P P Lemmens; M L G Janssen-Heijnen; C D G W Verheij; S Houterman; O J Repelaer van Driel; J W W Coebergh Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 6.939