Waddah B Al-Refaie1, Paul A Decker2, Karla V Ballman3, Peter W T Pisters4, Mitchell C Posner5, Kelly K Hunt4, Bryan Meyers6, Armin D Weinberg7, Heidi Nelson2, Lisa Newman4, Angelina Tan2, Jennifer G Le-Rademacher2, Arti Hurria8, Aminah Jatoi9. 1. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C., USA. 2. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. 4. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA. 5. University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 7. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 8. City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 9. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Jatoi.aminah@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of surgery, particularly for older cancer patients with serious, extensive comorbidities, can make this otherwise curative modality precarious. Leveraging data from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, this study sought to characterize age-based comparative demographics, adverse event rates, and study completion rates to define how best to conduct research in older cancer patients. METHODS: This study relied on clinical data from 21 completed studies to assess whether older patients experienced more grade 3 or worse adverse events and were more likely to discontinue study participation prematurely than their younger counterparts. RESULTS: The study enrolled 12,367 patients. The median age was 60 years, and 36% of the patients were 65 years of age or older. Among 4008 patients with adverse event data, 1067 (27%) had experienced a grade 3 or worse event. The patients 65 years or older had higher rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events compared to younger patients [32% vs. 24%; odds ratio (OR), 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-1.7; p < 0.0001]. This association was not observed in multivariate analyses. The study protocol was completed by 97% of the patients. No association was observed between age and trial completion (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7-1.1; p = 0.14). Only the older gastrointestinal cancer trial patients were less likely to complete their studies compared to younger patients (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30-0.70; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Despite higher rates of adverse events, the older patients typically completed the study protocol, thereby contributing relevant data on how best to render care to older cancer patients and affirming the important role of enrolling these patients to surgical trials.
BACKGROUND: The risk of surgery, particularly for older cancerpatients with serious, extensive comorbidities, can make this otherwise curative modality precarious. Leveraging data from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, this study sought to characterize age-based comparative demographics, adverse event rates, and study completion rates to define how best to conduct research in older cancerpatients. METHODS: This study relied on clinical data from 21 completed studies to assess whether older patients experienced more grade 3 or worse adverse events and were more likely to discontinue study participation prematurely than their younger counterparts. RESULTS: The study enrolled 12,367 patients. The median age was 60 years, and 36% of the patients were 65 years of age or older. Among 4008 patients with adverse event data, 1067 (27%) had experienced a grade 3 or worse event. The patients 65 years or older had higher rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events compared to younger patients [32% vs. 24%; odds ratio (OR), 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-1.7; p < 0.0001]. This association was not observed in multivariate analyses. The study protocol was completed by 97% of the patients. No association was observed between age and trial completion (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7-1.1; p = 0.14). Only the older gastrointestinal cancer trial patients were less likely to complete their studies compared to younger patients (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30-0.70; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Despite higher rates of adverse events, the older patients typically completed the study protocol, thereby contributing relevant data on how best to render care to older cancerpatients and affirming the important role of enrolling these patients to surgical trials.
Authors: Wendy R Cornett; Linda M McCall; Rebecca P Petersen; Merrick I Ross; Henry A Briele; R Dirk Noyes; Jeffrey J Sussman; William G Kraybill; John M Kane; H Richard Alexander; Jeffrey E Lee; Paul F Mansfield; James F Pingpank; David J Winchester; Richard L White; Vijaya Chadaram; James E Herndon; Douglas L Fraker; Douglas S Tyler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: V J Picozzi; R A Abrams; P A Decker; W Traverso; E M O'Reilly; E Greeno; R C Martin; L S Wilfong; M L Rothenberg; M C Posner; P W T Pisters Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Michael Tallarico; Jared C Foster; Drew Seisler; Jacqueline M Lafky; Arti Hurria; Aminah Jatoi; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman B Muss; Nancy Bartlett; Bruce D Cheson; Sin-Ho Jung; John P Leonard; John C Byrd; Chadi Nabhan Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Matthew J Ellis; Vera J Suman; Jeremy Hoog; Li Lin; Jacqueline Snider; Aleix Prat; Joel S Parker; Jingqin Luo; Katherine DeSchryver; D Craig Allred; Laura J Esserman; Gary W Unzeitig; Julie Margenthaler; Gildy V Babiera; P Kelly Marcom; Joseph M Guenther; Mark A Watson; Marilyn Leitch; Kelly Hunt; John A Olson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rachel A Freedman; Jared C Foster; Drew K Seisler; Jacqueline M Lafky; Hyman B Muss; Harvey J Cohen; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Eric P Winer; Clifford A Hudis; Ann H Partridge; Lisa A Carey; Constance Cirrincione; Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia; Gretchen Kimmick; Aminah Jatoi; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt; Karla V Ballman; Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Linda M McCall; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Valerie W Rusch; Debra Hawes; Paul A Decker; Sue Ellen Martin; Andrea Abati; Rodney J Landreneau; G Alexander Patterson; Richard I Inculet; David R Jones; Richard A Malthaner; Robbin G Cohen; Karla Ballman; Joe B Putnam; Richard J Cote Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-11 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: Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Lindsay A Renfro; Oliver S Chow; Qian Shi; Xiomara W Carrero; Patricio B Lynn; Charles R Thomas; Emily Chan; Peter A Cataldo; Jorge E Marcet; David S Medich; Craig S Johnson; Samuel C Oommen; Bruce G Wolff; Alessio Pigazzi; Shane M McNevin; Roger K Pons; Ronald Bleday Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ronald Chow; Daniel E Lage; Grant R Williams; Mina S Sedrak; Joseph A Greer; Jennifer S Temel; Ryan D Nipp Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: Noam A VanderWalde; Travis Dockter; Daniel V Wakefield; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Reshma Jagsi; Stuart M Lichtman; Rachel A Freedman; Jacqueline M Lafky; Hyman Muss; Harvey Jay Cohen; Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Aminah Jatoi Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 3.599