Marie Laurent1, Elena Paillaud, Christophe Tournigand, Philippe Caillet, Aurélie Le Thuaut, Jean-Léon Lagrange, Olivier Beauchet, Hélène Vincent, Muriel Carvahlo-Verlinde, Stéphane Culine, Sylvie Bastuji-Garin, Florence Canouï-Poitrine. 1. Université Paris Est, Faculté de Médecine, LIC, EA4393 Créteil, France; Département de Médecine Interne et Gériatrie, Unité de Coordination d'Onco-Gériatrie (UCOG-Sud Val de Marne), Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Service de Santé Publique, Unité de Recherche Clinique, Service de Radiothérapie, and Service de Pharmacie, AP-HP, Hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France; Centre hospitalier universitaire, Département de Neuroscience, Division Médecine gériatrique Angers, France; AP-HP Hôpital Paul Brousse, Service de soins de suite polyvalents, Villejuif, France; AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess solid cancer treatment feasibility in older patients. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, 385 consecutive elderly patients (mean age: 78.9 ± 5.4 years; 47.8% males) with solid malignancies referred to two geriatric oncology clinics were included prospectively. We recorded feasibility of first-line chemotherapy (planned number of cycles in patients without metastases and three to six cycles depending on tumor site in patients with metastases), surgery (patient alive 30 days after successfully performed planned surgical procedure), radiotherapy (planned dose delivered), and hormonal therapy (planned drug dose given), and we recorded overall 1-year survival. RESULTS: Main tumor sites were colorectal (28.6%), breast (23.1%), and prostate (10.9%), and 47% of patients had metastases. Planned cancer treatment was feasible in 65.7% of patients with metastases; this proportion was 59.0% for chemotherapy, 82.6% for surgery, 100% for radiotherapy, and 85.2% for hormonal therapy. In the group without metastases, feasibility proportions were 86.8% overall, 72.4% for chemotherapy, 95.7% for surgery, 96.4% for radiotherapy, and 97.9% for hormonal therapy. Factors independently associated with chemotherapy feasibility were good functional status defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status <2 (p < .0001) or activities of daily living >5 (p = .01), normal mobility defined as no difficulty walking (p = .01) or no fall risk (p = .007), and higher creatinine clearance (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Feasibility rates were considerably lower for chemotherapy than for surgery, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. Therefore, utilization of limited geriatric oncology resources may be optimized by preferential referral of elderly cancer patients initially considered for chemotherapy to geriatric oncology clinics.
PURPOSE: To assess solid cancer treatment feasibility in older patients. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, 385 consecutive elderly patients (mean age: 78.9 ± 5.4 years; 47.8% males) with solid malignancies referred to two geriatric oncology clinics were included prospectively. We recorded feasibility of first-line chemotherapy (planned number of cycles in patients without metastases and three to six cycles depending on tumor site in patients with metastases), surgery (patient alive 30 days after successfully performed planned surgical procedure), radiotherapy (planned dose delivered), and hormonal therapy (planned drug dose given), and we recorded overall 1-year survival. RESULTS: Main tumor sites were colorectal (28.6%), breast (23.1%), and prostate (10.9%), and 47% of patients had metastases. Planned cancer treatment was feasible in 65.7% of patients with metastases; this proportion was 59.0% for chemotherapy, 82.6% for surgery, 100% for radiotherapy, and 85.2% for hormonal therapy. In the group without metastases, feasibility proportions were 86.8% overall, 72.4% for chemotherapy, 95.7% for surgery, 96.4% for radiotherapy, and 97.9% for hormonal therapy. Factors independently associated with chemotherapy feasibility were good functional status defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status <2 (p < .0001) or activities of daily living >5 (p = .01), normal mobility defined as no difficulty walking (p = .01) or no fall risk (p = .007), and higher creatinine clearance (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Feasibility rates were considerably lower for chemotherapy than for surgery, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. Therefore, utilization of limited geriatric oncology resources may be optimized by preferential referral of elderly cancerpatients initially considered for chemotherapy to geriatric oncology clinics.
Authors: Gunnar Folprecht; Matthew T Seymour; Leonard Saltz; Jean-Yves Douillard; Hartmut Hecker; Richard J Stephens; Timothy S Maughan; Eric Van Cutsem; Philippe Rougier; Emmanuel Mitry; Ute Schubert; Claus-Henning Köhne Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith; Arti Hurria; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Fiorica; F Cartei; B Carau; S Berretta; D Spartà; U Tirelli; A Santangelo; D Maugeri; S Luca; C Leotta; R Sorace; M Berretta Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Brian K Link; Shane D Scott; David J Delgado; Moshe Fridman Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: James Cassidy; Leonard B Saltz; Bruce J Giantonio; Fairooz F Kabbinavar; Herbert I Hurwitz; Ulrich-Peter Rohr Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: S M L M Looijaard; M S Slee-Valentijn; L N Groeneveldt; D J H Deeg; M Huisman; A B Maier Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 3.921