Search

Cancer is a disease of aging and is rapidly becoming the number one cause of mortality in older people. Over their lifetime, one in two men and one in three women will develop a cancer, with half of the risk being beyond the age of seventy. Therefore, cancer is a problem frequently encountered by geriatricians. In this article, we review a few recent progresses that will be of interest to the geriatric community. First, we now have robust evidence that a comprehensive geriatric assessment and management change outcomes in older cancer patients, notably allowing decreased treatment toxicity, better treatment completion, and increased functional outcomes. In gastrointestinal cancers and breast cancer, several recent studies have addressed when treatment intensity can be decreased, and when it cannot. New treatments for acute myeloid leukemia are finally beginning to improve outcomes for older patients and such patients should be referred to oncologists for management. In prostate cancer, new imaging techniques (e.g., PSMA scan) and treatment options can allow better treatment targeting and spare some hormonal and chemotherapy toxicity. Finally, we review recent public policy efforts to address the epidemiologic wave of cancer in older patients on a global scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data about patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors are sparse. Our exploratory study evaluated PROs in patients with HNSCC starting treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy or combination therapy with cetuximab. Methods: Patients were recruited prior to receipt of their first checkpoint inhibitor therapy infusion. Participants completed measures of checkpoint inhibitor toxicities and quality of life (QOL) at on‐treatment clinic visits. Results: Among patients treated with checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy (n = 48) or combination therapy (n = 38) toxicity increased over time (p < 0.05), while overall QOL improved from baseline to 12 weeks, with stable or declining QOL thereafter (p < 0.05). There were no group differences in change in toxicity index or QOL. Toxicity index scores were significantly higher in the combination group at 18–20 weeks and 6 months post‐initiation of immune checkpoint inhibitor (p < 0.05). There were no significant group differences at baseline, the 6–8 week (p = 0.13) or 3‐month (p = 0.09) evaluations. The combination group reported better emotional well‐being at baseline than the monotherapy group (p = 0.04), There were no other group differences QOL at baseline or later timepoints. Conclusions: Despite increasing patient‐reported toxicity, checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy and combination therapy were associated with similar transient improvements, then worsening, of QOL in patients with HNSCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies suggest treatment outcomes may vary between high (HVC)‐ and low‐volume centers (LVC). Radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) requires weeks of treatment, the inconvenience of which may influence a patient's choice for treatment location. We hypothesized that receipt of RT for HNC at a HVC would influence outcomes compared to patients evaluated at a HVC, but who chose to receive RT at a LVC. Methods: From 1998 to 2011, 1930 HNC patients were evaluated at a HVC and then treated with RT at either a HVC or LVC. Time‐to‐event outcomes and treatment factors were compared. Results: Median follow‐up was 34 months. RT was delivered at a HVC for 1368 (71%) patients and at a LVC in 562 (29%). Patients were more likely to choose HVC‐RT if they resided in the HVC's county or required definitive RT (all P < 0.001). HVC‐RT was associated with a significant improvement in 3‐year LRC (84% vs 68%), DFS (68% vs 48%), and OS (72% vs 57%) (all P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis (MVA), HVC‐RT independently predicted for improved LRC, DFS, and OS (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: In patients evaluated at a HVC, the choice of RT location was primarily influenced by their residing distance from the HVC. HVC‐RT was associated with improvements in LRC, DFS, and OS in HNC. As treatment planning and delivery are technically demanding in HNC, the choice to undergo treatment at a HVC may result in more optimal delivered dose, RT duration, and outcome. Patient choice to undergo radiation therapy at a high‐volume center (HVC) was primarily influenced by their residing distance from the HVC. HVC radiation treatment was associated with improvements in locoregional control, disease‐free survival, and overall survival in head and neck cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Given the aggressive behavior of advanced salivary malignancies, the purpose of the current study was to explore the utility of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in this population. Methods A retrospective study of salivary carcinomas treated from 1998 to 2013 with postoperative CRT (37 patients) or radiotherapy (RT; 103 patients) was completed. Results The decision to utilize adjuvant CRT versus RT was influenced by tumor grade and histology, cervical lymph node status, surgical margins, and perineural invasion. In both treatment cohorts, high locoregional control rates were obtained (79% for CRT vs 91% for RT; p = .031). Multivariate Cox regression analysis did not identify a difference in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) with the use of CRT versus RT (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.783; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.396-1.549; p = .482). Conclusion Until prospective evidence is available, such as from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1008, the standard use of CRT for advanced salivary malignancies cannot be recommended. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: 1708-1716, 2016 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Determining the optimal follow-up for patients can help maximize the use of health care resources. This is particularly true in a growing epidemic such as human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV+OPSCC). The objective of the current study was to evaluate time to disease recurrence or late toxicity in this cohort of patients to optimize patient management.Methods: An institutional database identified 232 patients with biopsy-proven, nonmetastatic HPV+OPSCC who were treated with radiotherapy. A retrospective review was conducted in patients who were followed every 3 months for the first year, every 4 months in year 2, and every 6 months in years 3 to 5. Late toxicity (grade ≥ 3; toxicity was scored based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4]), locoregional control, distant control, and overall survival were assessed.Results: The median follow-up was 33 months. Based on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0129 study risk groupings, patients were either considered to be at low (162 patients; 70%) or intermediate (70 patients; 30%) risk. Concurrent systemic therapy was used in 85% of patients (196 patients). The 3-year locoregional control, distant control, and overall survival rates were 94%, 91%, and 91%, respectively. Late toxicity occurred in 9% of patients (21 patients). Overall, 64% of toxicity and failure events occurred within the first 6 months of follow-up, with a < 2% event incidence noted at each subsequent follow-up. Only 4 patients experienced their first event after 2 years.Conclusions: HPV+OPSCC has a low risk of disease recurrence and late toxicity after treatment; approximately two-thirds of events occur within the first 6 months of follow-up. These data suggest that it may be reasonable to reduce follow-up in patients with HPV+OPSCC to every 3 months for the first 6 months, every 6 months for the first 2 years, and annually thereafter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Despite resection followed by adjuvant radiotherapy, high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck region (SCCHN) often recur. Because adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation reduces recurrence among high-risk mucosal SCCHN, we sought to understand its efficacy among high-risk cutaneous SCCHN. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with cutaneous SCCHN who underwent adjuvant radiation or concurrent chemoradiation. Patients must have had stage III/IV with high-risk features, including metastatic involvement of ≥2 lymph nodes, positive margins, or extracapsular invasion. Results There were 61 patients: 27 (44%) received adjuvant radiation and 34 (56%) received adjuvant chemoradiation. The median recurrence-free survivals were 15.4 and 40.3 months, respectively. Adjuvant chemoradiation significantly decreased the risk of recurrence or death in a multivariable analysis: hazard ratio (HR) 0.31 ( p = .01). However, a difference in overall survival was not found. Conclusion For high-risk cutaneous SCCHN, adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with a better recurrence-free survival than adjuvant radiation alone. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 37: 840-845, 2015 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Over the past decade, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has gained widespread use in the treatment of head and neck cancer. Methods All patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx treated with primary IMRT with or without chemotherapy over a 5-year period were reviewed. Outcomes and morbidity were analyzed and compared with previously published data. Results In all, 170 patients were included in the analysis. The 3-year local control, locoregional control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 92%, 91%, 80%, and 87%, respectively. Feeding tubes were present in 55% of patients during treatment, but remained in only 1% 2 years following treatment. Conclusions This study confirms that IMRT yields excellent treatment outcomes for oropharyngeal carcinoma. Although acute toxicity remains a problem, late toxicity rates are low and long-term feeding tube dependence is rare compared with conventional radiation therapy. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 35: 1796-1800, 2013 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: To improve overall survival (OS), we evaluated a combination of cetuximab and nivolumab for toxicity and efficacy in patients with incurable recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). In addition, electronic health record-derived real-world data were used to provide clinical context for our prospective findings and to explore sequential treatment effects of cetuximab and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) including nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The cetuximab and nivolumab combination was very well tolerated. Although patients with no prior CPI showed a trend for more favorable progression-free survival relative to patients with prior CPI, the improvement in the 1-year OS did not reach the statistical threshold in this heavily treated patients. Optimal sequencing of cetuximab and CPI may have an impact in prognosis and requires further evaluation in management of patients with incurable HNSCC. We hypothesized the combination of cetuximab and nivolumab would improve survival in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC by providing synergy in cancer control and evaluated toxicities and efficacy of the combination. Effects of sequential administration of cetuximab and anti-Programmed Cell Death-1 checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) were also explored. Patients who failed at least one line of palliative treatment for incurable HNSCC were treated with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 IV on Day (D)-14 as a lead-in followed by cetuximab 500 mg/m2 IV and nivolumab 240 mg/m2 IV on D1 and D15 every 28-D cycle. Electronic health record-derived real-world data (RWD) were used to explore sequential treatment effects of CPI and cetuximab. A total of 45 evaluable patients were analyzed, and 31/45 (69%) patients had prior exposure to either CPI or cetuximab. The only grade 4 treatment-related adverse event was cetuximab infusion reaction in one patient. The 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 19% and 44%, respectively. Although patients with no prior CPI (23/45, 51%) showed a trend for more favorable PFS relative to patients with prior CPI (22/45, 49%), the improvement in the 1-year OS did not reach the statistical threshold. For evaluation of sequential CPI and cetuximab treatment effects, we selected RWD-cetuximab cohort with 173 patients and RWD-CPI cohort with 658 patients from 6862 R/M HNSCC. Our result suggested patients treated with RWD-cetuximab after RWD-CPI had worse OS compared to no prior RWD-CPI (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.02–3.16). Our data suggest the combination of cetuximab and nivolumab is well tolerated. Optimal sequencing of cetuximab and CPI may have an impact in prognosis and requires further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]