William P. Tew

PURPOSE: Older adults are vulnerable to chemotherapy toxicity; however, there are limited data to identify those at risk. The goals of this study are to identify risk factors for chemotherapy toxicity in older adults and develop a risk stratification schema for chemotherapy toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age ≥ 65 years with cancer from seven institutions completed a prechemotherapy assessment that captured sociodemographics, tumor/treatment variables, laboratory test results, and geriatric assessment variables (function, comorbidity, cognition, psychological state, social activity/support, and nutritional status). Patients were followed through the chemotherapy course to capture grade 3 (severe), grade 4 (life-threatening or disabling), and grade 5 (death) as defined by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: In total, 500 patients with a mean age of 73 years (range, 65 to 91 years) with stage I to IV lung (29%), GI (27%), gynecologic (17%), breast (11%), genitourinary (10%), or other (6%) cancer joined this prospective study. Grade 3 to 5 toxicity occurred in 53% of the patients (39% grade 3, 12% grade 4, 2% grade 5). A predictive model for grade 3 to 5 toxicity was developed that consisted of geriatric assessment variables, laboratory test values, and patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. A scoring system in which the median risk score was 7 (range, 0 to 19) and risk stratification schema (risk score: percent incidence of grade 3 to 5 toxicity) identified older adults at low (0 to 5 points; 30%), intermediate (6 to 9 points; 52%), or high risk (10 to 19 points; 83%) of chemotherapy toxicity (P < .001). CONCLUSION: A risk stratification schema can establish the risk of chemotherapy toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment variables independently predicted the risk of toxicity.

Purpose To provide guidance regarding the practical assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods An Expert Panel was convened to develop clinical practice guideline recommendations based on a systematic review of the medical literature. Results A total of 68 studies met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Recommendations In patients ≥ 65 years receiving chemotherapy, geriatric assessment (GA) should be used to identify vulnerabilities that are not routinely captured in oncology assessments. Evidence supports, at a minimum, assessment of function, comorbidity, falls, depression, cognition, and nutrition. The Panel recommends instrumental activities of daily living to assess for function, a thorough history or validated tool to assess comorbidity, a single question for falls, the Geriatric Depression Scale to screen for depression, the Mini-Cog or the Blessed Orientation-Memory-Concentration test to screen for cognitive impairment, and an assessment of unintentional weight loss to evaluate nutrition. Either the CARG (Cancer and Aging Research Group) or CRASH (Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients) tools are recommended to obtain estimates of chemotherapy toxicity risk; the Geriatric-8 or Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 can help to predict mortality. Clinicians should use a validated tool listed at ePrognosis to estimate noncancer-based life expectancy ≥ 4 years. GA results should be applied to develop an integrated and individualized plan that informs cancer management and to identify nononcologic problems amenable to intervention. Collaborating with caregivers is essential to implementing GA-guided interventions. The Panel suggests that clinicians take into account GA results when recommending chemotherapy and that the information be provided to patients and caregivers to guide treatment decision making. Clinicians should implement targeted, GA-guided interventions to manage nononcologic problems. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

PURPOSE: Older adults are at increased risk for chemotherapy toxicity, and standard oncology assessment measures cannot identify those at risk. A predictive model for chemotherapy toxicity was developed (N = 500) that consisted of geriatric assessment questions and other clinical variables. This study aims to externally validate this model in an independent cohort (N = 250). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age ≥ 65 years with a solid tumor, fluent in English, and who were scheduled to receive a new chemotherapy regimen were recruited from eight institutions. Risk of chemotherapy toxicity was calculated (low, medium, or high risk) on the basis of the prediction model before the start of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-related toxicity was captured (grade 3 [hospitalization indicated], grade 4 [life threatening], and grade 5 [treatment-related death]). Validation of the prediction model was performed by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: The study sample (N = 250) had a mean age of 73 years (range, 65 to 94 [standard deviation, 5.8]). More than one half of patients (58%) experienced grade ≥ 3 toxicity. Risk of toxicity increased with increasing risk score (36.7% low, 62.4% medium, 70.2% high risk; P < .001). The area under the curve of the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.71), which was not statistically different from the development cohort (0.72; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.77; P = .09). There was no association between Karnofsky Performance Status and chemotherapy toxicity (P = .25). CONCLUSION: This study externally validated a chemotherapy toxicity predictive model for older adults with cancer. This predictive model should be considered when discussing the risks and benefits of chemotherapy with older adults.

Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence-based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real-world data.