Search

Introduction: To compare the real-world safety profile of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors between younger and older patients., Materials and Methods: All patients receiving pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab or durvalumab between September 2016 and September 2019 at Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands were included in this retrospective study. Immune-related adverse drug reactions (irADRs) were manually retrieved from the electronic patient files. The cumulative incidence of irADRs were compared between younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients using a Pearsons Chi-square test., Results: We identified 217 patients who were treated with at least one dose of PD-(L)1 inhibitor. 58% were 65 years or older at the start of immunotherapy. 183 patients (84.3%) received monotherapy PD-(L)1 inhibitors and 34 (15.7%) received chemo-immunotherapy. A total of 278 irADRs were registered. Cutaneous irADRs (53.9%), thyroid gland disorders (20.3%), and non-infectious diarrhoea/colitis (17.5%) were the most frequently reported irADRs. The majority of the irADRs were mild to moderate and no fatal irADRs were observed. 61 (21.9%) of the irADRs needed systemic treatment, of which 19 (6.8%) required treatment with corticosteroids. 18 irADRs (6.5%) were severe and resulted in hospitalisation. The cumulative incidence of cutaneous irADRs was different between the age groups: 45.7% of the patients <65 years and in 60.0% of the patients ≥65 years (p = 0.036). No statistical difference was found in the cumulative incidence of other irADRs between the two age groups., Discussion: Advanced age is not associated with immune-related adverse drug reactions of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Because of the time-consuming aspect of geriatric assessments, cancer specialists are seeking shorter screening tools to distinguish fit and frail patients. We analyzed the predictive value of the Geriatric 8 (G8) and Identification of Seniors at Risk for Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) in elderly patients with lung cancer., Patients and Methods: From January 2014 to April 2016, the data from patients with lung cancer aged > 70 years at 2 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands were included in a database. The patients were classified as potentially frail if they had a G8 of ≤ 14 or ISAR-HP of ≥ 2., Results: Of the 142 included patients (median age, 77 years; interquartile range, 73-82 years), 108 (76%) were potentially frail. After correction for possible confounders, the potentially frail patients had a significantly greater risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 4.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-9.99; P = .02). Higher disease stage (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.40-2.12; P < .001) was also a significant predictor of mortality; however, initial treatment (standard or otherwise) and age were not. When using both screening instruments separately, an impaired score on the G8 and higher disease stage were the variables remaining in the regression analyses (HR for impaired G8, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.35-6.72; P < .001). Patients with impaired scores on the ISAR-HP and G8 had more geriatric impairments than did patients with only an impaired G8 score., Conclusion: G8 screening is useful for the prognostication of elderly patients with lung cancer and could be used in combination with ISAR-HP to increase specificity at the cost of sensitivity. Using the ISAR-HP as the only screening tool would be insufficient., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: An important step in improving research and care for the oldest patients with lung cancer is analyzing current data regarding diagnostic work-up, treatment choices, and survival., Methods: We analyzed data on lung cancer from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR-IKNL) regarding diagnostic work-up, treatment, and survival in different age categories; the oldest old (≥85 years of age) versus those aged 71-84 (elderly) and those aged ≤70 years (younger patients)., Results: 47,951 patients were included in the 2010-2014 NCR database. 2196 (5%) patients were aged ≥85 years. Histological diagnosis was obtained significantly less often in the oldest old (38%, p < 0.001), and less standard treatment regimen was given (8%, p < 0.001) compared to elderly and younger patients. 67% of the oldest old received best supportive care only versus 38% of the elderly and 20% of the younger patients (p < 0.001). For the oldest old receiving standard treatment, survival rates were similar in comparison with the elderly patients. In the oldest old, no survival differences were found when comparing standard or adjusted regimens for stage I and IV NSCLC; for stage III, oldest old receiving standard treatment had longer survival. No oldest old patients with stage II received standard treatment., Conclusion: Clinicians make limited use of diagnostics and invasive treatment in the oldest old; however, selected oldest old patients experienced similar survival rates as the elderly when receiving some form of anticancer therapy (standard or adjusted). More research is needed to further develop individualized treatment algorithms.

Background: Decision-making for older patients with lung cancer can be complex and challenging. A geriatric assessment (GA) may be helpful and is increasingly being used since 2005 when SIOG advised to incorporate this in standard work-up for the elderly with cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the value of a geriatric assessment in decision-making for patients with lung cancer., Methods: Between January 2014 and April 2016, data on patients with lung cancer from two teaching hospitals in the Netherlands were entered in a prospective database. Outcome of geriatric assessment, non-oncologic interventions, and suggested adaptations of oncologic treatment proposals were evaluated., Results: 83 patients (median age 79 years) were analyzed with a geriatric assessment, of which 59% were treated with a curative intent. Half of the patients were classified as ECOG PS 0 or 1. The majority of the patients (78%) suffered from geriatric impairments and 43% (n = 35) of the patients suffered from three or more geriatric impairments (out of eight analyzed domains). Nutritional status was most frequently impaired (52%). Previously undiagnosed impairments were identified in 58% of the patients, and non-oncologic interventions were advised for 43%. For 33% of patients, adaptations of the oncologic treatment were proposed. Patients with higher number of geriatric impairments more often were advised a reduced or less intensive treatment (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: A geriatric assessment uncovers previously unknown health impairments and provides important guidance for tailored treatment decisions in patients with lung cancer. More research on GA-stratified treatment decisions is needed.

Background: Lung cancer is predominantly a disease of the elderly: half of all newly diagnosed patients are over 70 years old. Older patients and those with comorbidities are underrepresented in clinical trials; scientific communities have addressed this issue since the end of the 20th century. We set out to determine the characteristics of the selection of patients in lung cancer trials that are currently recruiting., Methods: We searched The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinical trial registry ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ) on April 23, 2015 for currently recruiting phase I, II, or III clinical trials in lung cancer. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website., Results: Of the 419 trails selected in this overview, 88 % explicitly or implicitly excluded elderly patients. Patients were excluded based on stringent organ selection in 76 % of the trials, based on performance status (57 %) and based on age (13 %). The median number of placed restrictions per trial was seven. In the 2 % of the trials that were exclusively designed for elderly patients only fit patients were included., Conclusion: In this overview of current lung cancer trials registered in the NIH clinical trial registry, we found that elderly patients and those with comorbidities are often excluded from participation in clinical trials. Therefore, it is difficult for physicians and their frail patients to properly evaluate the efficacy and safety of current treatment options. More research that includes the elderly and those with comorbidities is urgently needed.

Lung cancer is predominantly a disease of the elderly: one half of all newly diagnosed patients will be > 70 years old. In the Netherlands, > 12,000 new cases are diagnosed annually. We sought to assemble all available evidence on the relevance of a geriatric assessment for lung cancer patients. A systematic Medline and Embase search was performed for studies in which a geriatric assessment was used to detect health issues or that had addressed the association between a baseline geriatric assessment (composed of ≥ 2 of the following domains: cognitive function, mood/depression, nutritional status, activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, polypharmacy, objectively measured physical capacity, social support and frailty) and outcome. A total of 23 publications from 18 studies were included. The median age of patients was 76 years (range, 73-81 years). Despite generally good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the prevalence of geriatric impairments was high, with the median ranging from 29% for cognitive impairment to 70% for instrumental activities of daily living impairment. Objective physical capacity and nutritional status, as items of the geriatric assessment, had a consistent association with mortality. The information revealed by a geriatric assessment led to changes in oncologic treatment and nononcologic interventions. The present review has demonstrated that a geriatric assessment can detect multiple health issues not reflected in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Impairments in geriatric domains have predictive value for mortality and appear to be associated with treatment completion. It would be useful to develop and validate an individualized treatment algorithm that includes these geriatric domains., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Scientific communities focusing on cancer research have urged for the development of trials that address patient-centered outcome measures instead of solely focusing on cancer as a disease-centered process. This is important for a patient with lung cancer because of the rapid course of disease and generally poor prognosis. We set out to determine the characteristics and study objectives of the current clinical trials in pulmonary malignancies., Methods: The United States National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry was searched on April 23rd 2015, for currently recruiting phase I, II, or III clinical trials in lung cancer. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website., Results: Of the 419 clinical trials included in this review, patient-centered outcome measures are investigated in a minority of the trials. Outcome measures as quality of life, functional capacity, and health care utilization are included in a small number of trials (20, 4, and 2 % respectively). Treatment completion is included in 1 % of the trials. Research goals are most frequently toxicity (78 %) and progression-free survival (76 %)., Conclusion: Patient-centered outcome measures are included in a minority of the currently recruiting clinical trials in pulmonary malignancies. If we do not investigate these outcome measures, it is not possible to increase our knowledge of the optimal treatment, as this should aim to optimize the patient's wellbeing as well as the course of disease. One option could be to incorporate combinations of patient- and disease-centered endpoints, for instance by using overall treatment utility or quality-adjusted outcome measures.