INTRODUCTION: Phase II clinical trials including geriatric assessment (GA) measures are critical for improving the evidence base for older adults with cancer. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of nab-paclitaxel in older adults with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 65 years with MBC and ≤ 1 previous line of chemotherapy received 100 mg of nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. A GA was completed pre-chemotherapy, and the validated Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) chemotherapy toxicity risk score was calculated. Relationships between tolerability (number of courses, hospitalizations, dose reductions, and toxicity) and risk score were assessed using general linear models, Student t tests, and the Fisher test. Response rate and progression-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Forty patients (mean age, 73 years; range, 65-87 years) were included. The median number of cycles was 6, 75% (n = 30) of patients had ≥ 1 dose hold, and 50% (n = 20) had ≥ 1 dose reduction. Fifty-eight percent (n = 23) had treatment-related ≥ grade 3 toxicities, and 30% (n = 12) were hospitalized owing to toxicity. Thirty-five percent (n = 14) responded, and the median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% confidence interval, 5.5 months to undefined). Patients with intermediate/high toxicity risk scores had higher risk of grade ≥ 3 toxicity than those with low risk scores (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-33.1; P = .01). A higher mean risk score was associated with higher likelihood of dose reductions and hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults with MBC receiving weekly nab-paclitaxel, more than one-half experienced ≥ grade 3 chemotherapy toxicity. However, a GA-based risk score could predict treatment tolerability.
INTRODUCTION: Phase II clinical trials including geriatric assessment (GA) measures are critical for improving the evidence base for older adults with cancer. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of nab-paclitaxel in older adults with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 65 years with MBC and ≤ 1 previous line of chemotherapy received 100 mg of nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. A GA was completed pre-chemotherapy, and the validated Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) chemotherapy toxicity risk score was calculated. Relationships between tolerability (number of courses, hospitalizations, dose reductions, and toxicity) and risk score were assessed using general linear models, Student t tests, and the Fisher test. Response rate and progression-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Forty patients (mean age, 73 years; range, 65-87 years) were included. The median number of cycles was 6, 75% (n = 30) of patients had ≥ 1 dose hold, and 50% (n = 20) had ≥ 1 dose reduction. Fifty-eight percent (n = 23) had treatment-related ≥ grade 3 toxicities, and 30% (n = 12) were hospitalized owing to toxicity. Thirty-five percent (n = 14) responded, and the median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% confidence interval, 5.5 months to undefined). Patients with intermediate/high toxicity risk scores had higher risk of grade ≥ 3 toxicity than those with low risk scores (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-33.1; P = .01). A higher mean risk score was associated with higher likelihood of dose reductions and hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults with MBC receiving weekly nab-paclitaxel, more than one-half experienced ≥ grade 3 chemotherapy toxicity. However, a GA-based risk score could predict treatment tolerability.
Authors: Arti Hurria; Constance T Cirrincione; Hyman B Muss; Alice B Kornblith; William Barry; Andrew S Artz; Linda Schmieder; Rafat Ansari; William P Tew; Douglas Weckstein; Jeffrey Kirshner; Kayo Togawa; Kurt Hansen; Vani Katheria; Richard Stone; Ilene Galinsky; John Postiglione; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hope S Rugo; William T Barry; Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia; Alan P Lyss; Constance Cirrincione; Eleanor Leung; Erica L Mayer; Michael Naughton; Deborah Toppmeyer; Lisa A Carey; Edith A Perez; Clifford Hudis; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Ab A Aaldriks; Ed Maartense; Hans J W R Nortier; Lydia G M van der Geest; Saskia le Cessie; Bea C Tanis; Johanneke E A Portielje; Paula Ypma; Erik J Giltay Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Hans Wildiers; Pieter Heeren; Martine Puts; Eva Topinkova; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Martine Extermann; Claire Falandry; Andrew Artz; Etienne Brain; Giuseppe Colloca; Johan Flamaing; Theodora Karnakis; Cindy Kenis; Riccardo A Audisio; Supriya Mohile; Lazzaro Repetto; Barbara Van Leeuwen; Koen Milisen; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carolyn J Presley; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Sarah A Wall; Anne M Noonan; Desiree C Jones; Edmund Folefac; Nicole Williams; Janine Overcash; Ashley E Rosko Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Mina S Sedrak; Rachel A Freedman; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman B Muss; Aminah Jatoi; Heidi D Klepin; Tanya M Wildes; Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Gretchen G Kimmick; William P Tew; Kevin George; Simran Padam; Jennifer Liu; Andrew R Wong; Andrea Lynch; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Supriya G Mohile; William Dale Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Marie A Flannery; Eva Culakova; Beverly E Canin; Luke Peppone; Erika Ramsdale; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544