Search

PURPOSE This study determined whether an electronic version of the geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional, diverse setting. METHODs Ten sites within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology participated. Patients who had active cancer or a history of cancer and were 65 years of age or older were eligible. The geriatric assessment was completed with an electronic data capture system that had been loaded onto iPads. Feasibility was defined a priori as completion in at least 70% of patients either with or without help. To enhance racial diversity, the original sample size was later changed and augmented by 50% with the intention of increasing enrollment of older minority patients. RESULTS A total of one hundred fifty-four patients were registered with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-91 years). Forty-three (28%) identified themselves as African American or Black. One hundred forty-one patients (92%) completed the electronic geriatric assessment. Feasibility was observed across all subgroups, regardless of race, education, performance status, comorbidities, and cognition; 124 patients (81%) completed the geriatric assessment without help. Reasons for not completing the geriatric assessment are as follows: clinic visit did not occur (n = 6), no iPad connection to the Internet (n = 3), patient declined (n = 2), prolonged hospitalization (n = 1), and patient died (n = 1). Reasons for needing help, as reported by study personnel, were as follows: the patient preferred that research personnel ask the questions (n = 9), vision problem (n = 3), lack of comfort with the iPad (n = 2), questions were not clear (n = 1), less proficient in English (n = 1), and challenge in pressing the green button to go to the next question (n = 1). CONCLUSION The electronic geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional setting that includes a notable proportion of African American or Black patients.

Purpose Despite increasing awareness of accrual challenges, it is unknown if accrual of older patients to breast cancer treatment trials is improving. Methods We examined accrual of older patients to Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology systemic therapy breast cancer trials during 1985-2012 and compared disease characteristics and reasons for therapy cessation for older (age ≥ 65 years and ≥ 70 years) versus younger (age < 65 years and < 70 years) participants. To examine accrual trends, we modeled age as a function of time, using logistic regression. Results Overall, 17% of study participants were ≥ 65 years of age. Approximately 15%, 24%, and 24% of participants in adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic trials were age ≥ 65 years, and 7%, 15%, and 13% were age ≥ 70 years, respectively. The odds of a patient age ≥ 65 years enrolling significantly increased over time for adjuvant trials (odds ratio [OR] per year, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.05) but decreased significantly for neoadjuvant and metastatic trials (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.67 and OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.00). Similar trends were seen for those age ≥ 70 years but these were statistically significant for adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials only (OR, 1.05, 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.07; and OR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.62). In general, those age ≥ 65 years ( v those < 65 years) in adjuvant studies had a higher mean number of lymph nodes involved and more hormone receptor-negative tumors, although tumor sizes were similar. Early protocol treatment cessation was also more frequent in those age ≥ 65 years (50%) versus < 65 years (35.9%) across trials. Conclusion Older patients with breast cancer remain largely underrepresented in cooperative group therapeutic trials. We observed some improvement in accrual to adjuvant trials but worsening of accrual for neoadjuvant/metastatic trials. Novel strategies to increase accrual of older patients are critical to meaningfully change the evidence base for this growing patient population.

We examined acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) events among 9679 women treated for breast cancer on four adjuvant Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials with >90 months of follow-up in order to better characterize the risk for AML/MDS in older patients receiving anthracyclines. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine factors associated with AML/MDS, adjusting for age (≥65 vs.

Background Studies point to a direct association between social support and better cancer outcomes. This study examined whether baseline social support is associated with better survival and fewer chemotherapy-related adverse events in older, early-stage breast cancer patients. Methods This study is a pre-planned secondary analysis of CALGB 49907/Alliance A171301, a randomized trial that compared standard adjuvant chemotherapy versus capecitabine in breast cancer patients 65 years of age or older. A subset reported on the extent of their social support with questionnaires that were completed 6 times over 2 years. Results The median age of this 331-patient cohort was 72 years (range: 65, 90); 179 (55%) were married, and 210 (65%) lived with someone. One hundred forty-five patients (46%) described a social network of 0–10 people; 110 (35%) of 11–25; and 58 (19%) of 26 or more. The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) social support survey revealed that the median scores (range) for emotional/informational, tangible, positive social interaction, and affectionate social support were 94 (3, 100), 94 (0, 100), 96 (0, 100), and 100 (8, 100), respectively. Social support scores appeared stable over 2 years and higher (more support) than in other cancer settings. No statistically significant associations were observed between social support and survival and adverse events in multivariate analyses. However, married patients had smaller tumors, and those with arthritis reported less social support. Conclusion Although social support did not predict survival and adverse events, the exploratory but plausible inverse associations with larger tumors and arthritis suggest that social support merits further study. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction Time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) is the interval from chemotherapy initiation to premature discontinuation. We evaluated TTF based on age. Methods Pooled analyses were conducted with first-line chemotherapy trials for advanced NSCLC (CALGB 9730, 30203, and 30801). Comparisons among patients who were 65 years and older and 70 years and older were performed for TTF (primary endpoint), reasons for early chemotherapy cessation, grade 3+ adverse events, and overall survival. Results Among 1006 patients, 460 (46%) were older than 65 years of age. One hundred forty-five older patients (32% of this age cohort) completed all six planned chemotherapy cycles as did 170 (32%) younger patients. Median TTF was 2.9 months (95% confidence interval: 2.7– 3.2) in older patients and 3 months (95% confidence interval: 2.9–3.5) in younger patients; adjustment for performance status and stratification by chemotherapy by trial yielded no statistically significant age-based difference in TTF. However, reasons for early chemotherapy cessation differed between age groups (multivariate p = 0.004). Older patients were less likely to discontinue from cancer progression (41% versus 55%) and more likely from toxicity or patient choice (16% and 15%, respectively) compared to younger patients (13% and 6%, respectively). Older patients were more likely to experience grade 3+ adverse events (86% versus 79%) with no statistically significant difference in survival. An age cutpoint of 70+ years showed no difference in TTF, a lower trend of early cessation due to cancer progression, and somewhat shorter older patient survival. Conclusions TTF was comparable between older and younger patients; but different, age-based, and potentially modifiable reasons account for it.

Studies point to a direct association between social support and better cancer outcomes. This study examined whether baseline social support is associated with better survival and fewer chemotherapy-related adverse events in older, early-stage breast cancer patients.This study is a pre-planned secondary analysis of CALGB 49907/Alliance A171301, a randomized trial that compared standard adjuvant chemotherapy versus capecitabine in breast cancer patients 65 years of age or older. A subset reported on the extent of their social support with questionnaires that were completed 6 times over 2 years.The median age of this 331-patient cohort was 72 years (range: 65, 90); 179 (55%) were married, and 210 (65%) lived with someone. One hundred forty-five patients (46%) described a social network of 0-10 people; 110 (35%) of 11-25; and 58 (19%) of 26 or more. The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) social support survey revealed that the median scores (range) for emotional/informational, tangible, positive social interaction, and affectionate social support were 94 (3, 100), 94 (0, 100), 96 (0, 100), and 100 (8, 100), respectively. Social support scores appeared stable over 2 years and higher (more support) than in other cancer settings. No statistically significant associations were observed between social support and survival and adverse events in multivariate analyses. However, married patients had smaller tumors, and those with arthritis reported less social support.Although social support did not predict survival and adverse events, the exploratory but plausible inverse associations with larger tumors and arthritis suggest that social support merits further study.

Background: Contemporary approaches to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) incorporate chemo-immunotherapy, biologic combinations, and immune modulating agents; toxicities in elderly pts (³65 years) receiving these therapies are not well studied. Further, clinical and biologic factors predicting these toxicities in pts receiving biologic therapy remain undefined. Methods: We reviewed data on NHL and/or CLL pts treated prospectively on 14 studies by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2004-2014 (Table 1). Toxicity was assessed per the NCI CTCAE at the time of trial enrollment, and the probabilities of experiencing grade 3 and grade 4 hematologic (hem) and non-hematologic (non-hem) toxicities were modeled as a function of age (³65 years vs. < 65), time on study, treatment (biologics only vs. biologic + chemotherapy), gender, race, LDH, performance status (PS), stage, and an age-by-treatment interaction using logistic regression. Results: A total of 1199 pts (409 age ³ 65; 790 age < 65; 736=CLL and 463=NHL) were included. Among these patients, 493 received only biologic therapy (166 age ³ 65; 327 age < 65; 104 CLL; 389 NHL), and 706 received biologic + chemotherapy (243 age ³ 65; 463 age < 65; 632 CLL; 74 NHL). Among CLL pts (259 pts ³ 65), the effect of age on the probability of experiencing a grade 3 heme toxicity differed by treatment type (age-by-treatment interaction p = 0.047). Specifically, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) (age ³ 65 vs. < 65) for pts receiving only biologic therapy was 3.075 (95% CI: 1,15-8.25), and that for pts receiving biologic + chemotherapy was 1.044 (95% CI: 0.69 - 1.57). Similar results were seen in CLL pts for grade 4 heme toxicities (age-by-treatment interaction p = 0.033; biologic OR 6.937, 95% CI: 1.76-27.35; biologic + chemo OR 1.484, 95% CI: 1.04-2.13). No such interactions were found in CLL pts for grade 3 and 4 non-hem toxicities; however, older pts had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 3 non-hem toxicity than younger pts (adjusted OR 1.40; p = 0.047; 95% CI: 1.004-1.96). No age group differences were found in CLL pts for grade 4 non-hem toxicity. Similar analyses were performed for NHL pts (150 pts ³ 65), but no significant age group differences were found. Among CLL pts, women had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 3 heme toxicity than men (OR 2.01; p = 0.0007); no difference in grade 3 non-hem or any grade 4 toxicity was noted. Non-Caucasian CLL pts had higher odds of experiencing a grade 4 non-hem toxicity than Caucasians (OR 2.892; p = 0.0029), but no other toxicity differences were found. Worse PS was associated with increased toxicities (OR 1.871; p = 0.0009: grade 3 heme; OR 1.647; p = 0.0025: grade 3 non-hem; OR 1.410; p = 0.0448: grade 4 heme, and OR 1.931; p = 0.0252: grade 4 non-hem). CLL pts with advanced stage disease had higher odds of experiencing a heme toxicity (grade 3: OR 1.95; p = 0.0007, grade 4: OR 1.451; p = 0.0329), but no stage associations were found for non-hem toxicities. Among NHL pts, men had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 4 hematologic toxicity than women (OR 4.351; p = 0.0169), but no other toxicity differences were found. An increase in LDH was associated with significantly higher odds of experiencing grade 3 non-hem and grade 4 heme toxicities (grade 3 non-heme: OR 1.633; p = 0.021, grade 4 heme: OR 2.039, p = 0.0182), but no such effect was found for grade 3 heme or grade 4 non-hem. Worse PS was associated with higher odds of experiencing grade 3 toxicities (heme: OR 2.025; p = 0.0344, non-hem: OR 2.458; p = 0.0013), but no such differences were found for grade 4 toxicities. No significant stage or race effects were found in NHL patients. Conclusion: In pts ³65 years who have CLL or NHL, we identified several clinical and disease-related factors as potential predictors of developing grade 3 and/or 4 heme and non-hem toxicities (Table 2). A prognostic model is being constructed to predict toxicities in these under-studied pts to guide management and monitoring. Further, the impact of these toxicities on outcomes is being analyzed and will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Hurria: Celgene: Other: Research; Optum Health Care SOlutions: Consultancy, Other: Conference panel, research; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Carevive: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Research; GTx, Inc: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy. Cheson:Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nabhan:Infinity: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding.