Search

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is the gold standard treatment for patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There are concerns about the efficacy of OLT for HCC in older patients, who we hypothesized might have poorer outcomes. Therefore, we sought to examine advanced age and its impact on OLT outcomes.The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for patients who underwent OLT for HCC from 1987 to 2009. Patients were divided into 3 age groups: 35 to 49 years old, 50 to 64 years old, and 65 years or older, and patient characteristics were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the impact of age on OLT outcomes.Of 10,238 patients with OLT for HCC, 16.5% (n = 1,688) of patients were 35 to 49 years old, 67.8% (n = 6,937) were 35 to 49 years old, and 15.8% (n = 1,613) were 65 years and older. By Kaplan-Meier method, the 50- to 64-year-old age group had the highest overall survival, despite having one of the highest rates of hepatitis C positivity (70%), but this group also had the lowest rate of diabetes mellitus (8.7%). The lowest overall survival was observed in the 65-year or older age group (p0.001). Finally, there was no difference in disease-specific survival among the age groups (p = 0.858), and patients aged 65 years and older had the highest rate of death from nonhepatic causes (17.5%).Although OS was prolonged in younger patients who underwent OLT for HCC, there was no observed difference in disease-specific survival among the age groups. Our results suggest that carefully selected patients 65 years of age and older can derive equal benefit from OLT for HCC when compared with their younger counterparts.

The co-occurrence of multiple chronic conditions in cancer patients is common and can have negative impact on cancer and cancer survivorship outcomes. This study aimed to document comorbidity occurrence among African-American and Latina (English language preferred (ELP) and Spanish language preferred (SLP)) breast cancer survivors (BCS). Eighty-eight African-American, 95 ELP Latina, and 137 SLP Latina BCS were recruited via case ascertainment from the California Cancer Registry and hospital registries. BCS completed a self-report questionnaire assessing demographic and cancer characteristics, and presence of comorbidities. Overall, 75 % of BCS reported at least one comorbidity with arthritis (37 %), high blood pressure (37 %), psychological difficulties (29 %), and diabetes (19 %) being most commonly endorsed. SLP Latinas were more likely to report diabetes (29 %), psychological difficulties (42 %), and >3 comorbidities (p

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) provides a life-prolonging or potentially curative treatment option for patients with hematologic malignancies. Given the high transplant-related morbidity, these treatment strategies were initially restricted to younger patients, but are increasingly being used in older adults. The incidence of most hematologic malignancies increases with age; with the aging of the population, the number of potential older candidates for HCT increases. Autologous HCT (auto-HCT) in older patients may confer a slightly increased risk of specific toxicities (such as cardiac toxicities and mucositis) and have modestly lower effectiveness (in the case of lymphoma). However, auto-HCT remains a feasible, safe, and effective therapy for selected older adults with multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Similarly, allogeneic transplant (allo-HCT) is a potential therapeutic option for selected older adults, although fewer data exist on allo-HCT in older patients. Based on currently available data, age alone is not the best predictor of toxicity and outcomes; rather, the comorbidities and functional status of the older patient are likely better predictors of toxicity than chronologic age in both the autologous and allogeneic setting. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in older adults being considered for either an auto-HCT or allo-HCT may identify additional problems or geriatric syndromes, which may not be detected during the standard pretransplant evaluation. Further research is needed to establish the utility of CGA in predicting toxicity and to evaluate the quality of survival in older adults undergoing HCT.

To evaluate the association between renal function (RF) and chemotherapy-related toxicity (CRT) in older adults with cancer and to compare the effect of different RF formulas and body weight measurements on this association.This is a secondary analysis of data from a prospective multicenter study of patients ≥ age 65 who were starting a new chemotherapy regimen. RF was estimated with 4 formulas (modified Jelliffe [Jelliffe], Cockcroft-Gault [CG], Wright, and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD]), using actual, ideal and adjusted body weights for 492 patients. The association between baseline RF and grade 3-5 CRT was evaluated by unconditional logistic regression.As a continuous variable, decreased creatinine clearance (CrCl) calculated by CG with actual body weight was associated with increased odds of CRT (OR 1.12, P0.01; 95% CI 1.04-1.20) indicating that on average for every 10mL/min decrease in CrCl the odds of CRT increased by 12%. Very low RF (in the lowest 10%) with all formulas (CG, Jelliffe, Wright and MDRD) was associated with increased odds for CRT. This association is independent of the type of chemotherapy received (those requiring dose adjustment for renal function vs not). Neither primary dose reduction nor chemotherapy duration was associated with CRT. Serum creatinine alone was not associated with increased odds of CRT (OR 0.67, P=0.15).Decreased RF is associated with increased odds of CRT and should be considered when assessing risk of CRT in older adults with cancer. Serum creatinine alone is not adequate for risk assessment.

Cancer is the leading cause of death in older adults aged 60 to 79 years. Older patients with good performance status are able to tolerate commonly used treatment modalities as well as younger patients, particularly when adequate supportive care is provided. For older patients who are able to tolerate curative treatment, options include surgery, radiation therapy (RT), chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. RT can be highly effective and well tolerated in carefully selected patients, and advanced age alone should not preclude the use of RT in older patients with cancer. Judicious application of advanced RT techniques that facilitate normal tissue sparing and reduce RT doses to organs at risk are important for all patients, and may help to assuage concerns about the risks of RT in older adults. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the recent updates to the 2016 NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology specific to the use of RT in the management of older adults with cancer.

1069 Background: Androgen receptor (AR) targeting therapy has shown single agent activity in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). GTx-024, a nonsteroidal selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM), demonstrated preclinical and clinical activity in AR+ breast cancer. The current study is designed to test the safety and efficacy of GTx-024 and pembrolizumab in patients with AR+ metastatic TNBC (mTNBC). Methods: This is an open-label phase 2 study for AR+ mTNBC. Eligible participants receive pembrolizumab 200mg IV every 3 weeks in combination with GTx-024 18mg po daily. Key eligibility criteria include patients with AR+ ( > 10%, 1+ by IHC); mTNBC; ECOG 0-1; measurable disease per RECIST 1.1. Patients are excluded if they had prior checkpoint inhibitors or AR targeted agents. The primary objective is to evaluate the tolerability of GTx-024 and pembrolizumab, and determine the response rate. Results: Seventeen patients were enrolled in the study. One patient was ineligible due to previously undiagnosed brain metastases. Ten of 16 patients had visceral metastasis (lung or liver), and 15% of patients had received ≥ 3 previous lines of therapy for mTNBC. Among 16 patients evaluable for response, 2 patients achieved a best response of partial response (PR), 2 patient had stable disease (SD, 18 and 19 weeks ), 11 patients had progressive disease (PD), and 1 patient is too early for restaging imaging. Durable response was found in 1 patient. Grade 3 toxicities include 1 diarrhea and 1 dry skin. Grade 2 adverse events include 3 elevated liver function, 1 adrenal insufficiency, 1 hyperthyroidism, 1 palpitation, 1 diarrhea, 1 hyperhydrosis, 1 hot flashes and 1 headache. Three patients had dose delay and two patients had dose reduction. Conclusions: AR targeted therapy GTx-024 combined with pembrolizumab is well tolerated with clinical activity. Clinical trial information: NCT02971761.

11540 Background: Prognosis in NSCLC is vital for clinical decision making. With the aging US population and rapidly changing treatment landscape, we aimed to identify prognostic factors among older adults with advanced NSCLC receiving chemo-, immuno-, and/or targeted therapy. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of adults age ≥65 with advanced NSCLC starting a new non-curative systemic treatment (chemo-, immuno-, and/or targeted therapy) at a Comprehensive Cancer Center, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and safety-net hospital. Prior to treatment initiation, patients completed a geriatric assessment including cognition, function, comorbidities, mood, social support, and quality of life. Cox proportional hazards models were performed to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). Results: In a sample of 51 patients, median age was 73 (range 65-94). The majority of patients had stage IVB (59%) or IVA (39%) NSCLC. Current treatment included immunotherapy (37%), targeted therapy (29%), chemoimmunotherapy (18%), and chemo (16%). Most patients had received prior NSCLC treatment (80%): chemo (51%), targeted therapy (35%), immunotherapy (22%), radiation (RT; 47%), and/or surgery (19%). At enrollment, 73% had an abnormal Montreal Cognitive Assessment score < 26 (MoCA; median score 23) and 35% had an abnormal Timed Up and Go time ≥13.5 secs (TUG; median time 12.7 secs). Median OS was 12.5 months. In univariable analyses, stage IVB disease (HR 6.99, 95% CI 1.55-31.5), prior RT (HR 2.98, 95% CI 1.08-8.21), worse MoCA score (HR 1.15 per 1 point change, 95% CI 1.03-1.28), and longer TUG time (HR 1.13 per 1 sec change, 95% CI 1.05-1.23) were associated with worse OS. Of note, age, current NSCLC treatment, line of therapy, and Karnofsky Performance Status were not associated with OS. In multivariable analysis, MoCA score was the only statistically significant prognostic factor (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.30). Conclusions: We found that abnormal pretreatment cognition is very common and an important prognostic factor among older adults with advanced NSCLC. Pretreatment screening for cognitive impairment should be considered to inform prognostication, decision making, and treatment planning.

e18131 Background: Multiple studies have described the barriers and facilitators to oncology clinical trial accrual in academic practices. However, few studies have been done in community settings, even though the majority of patients with cancer receive their care in the community. We examined and compared community and academic oncologists’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to cancer clinical trial accrual. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from March to June 2018 with 44 medical oncologists at City of Hope (24 in academia; 20 in community sites). Purposive sampling was used to ensure participant diversity. Primary measures were oncologists’ self-reported perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to clinical trial accrual. Responses were recorded digitally, transcribed, and de-identified. Data was managed using NVivo v12. Two analysts coded the interview data using thematic content analysis (kappa = 0.74). A third analyst adjudicated discrepancies. Results: Of the 44 participants, 36% were women, and 68% had > 10 years of experience. Compared to academic oncologists, community oncologists more often cited barriers due to the lack of protocols suitable for community patients’ histology and stage (13% vs. 6%) and insufficient trial personnel support (13% vs. 9%). Compared to community oncologists, academic oncologists more often cited barriers due to limited time (14% vs. 8%) and overly stringent eligibility criteria (14% vs. 9%). Community oncologists more commonly reported extrinsic facilitators (e.g. reminders of available protocols from trial support staff) (91% vs. 76%) while academic oncologists more commonly reported intrinsic facilitators for offering clinical trials (e.g. self-motivation to prioritize clinical trials) (24% vs. 9%). Conclusions: Community oncologists more often reported facing barriers to accrual due to limited suitable trials and insufficient personnel support compared to academic oncologists. Additionally, community oncologists cite the need for more infrastructure to support accrual. Interventions to increase trial accrual must be tailored to address the unique needs of both community and academic practices.

e18132 Background: Older adults (65+ years) make up > 50% of cancer patients in the US,1 yet, older patient enrollment onto trials remains < 30%.2 This study’s aim was to determine the association between trial level variables and accrual rates of adults 65+ to better design trials that can more improve enrollment of these patients. Methods: We analyzed enrollment percentages of patients age 65+ in non-age specific Alliance trials with > 50 patients, that completed accrual between 1995- 2015. Enrollment percentage by 65+ for each study was compared to cancer incidence percentage by 65+ according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program for the same time periods. Enrollment Disparity Difference (EDD)3, defined as the difference between SEER incidence percentage of patients 65+ and the trial percentage enrollment of 65+ was calculated for each trial ( SEER % – trial %). Univariate analyses (UVA) were performed using simple linear regression to determine trial variables associated with larger EDDs (higher disparity). Variables that had an F-test p-value < 0.20 were included in a multivariable fixed-effects linear model for multivariate analysis (MVA). Results: Median age of 66,708 patients across 237 trials with 10 cancer types was 60 years. Average % of 65+ in trials was lower than average SEER comparison % 65+ per trial (37.6% vs. 57.8%). The median trial EDD, was 16.7%. On UVA, cancer type was significantly associated with higher EDD (see Table). Use of fewer modalities (1, 2, vs 3+) was associated with lower estimated EDDs (1 = -11 [+/-3.6], 2 = -8.9 [+/-3.9], F-test p = .012). On MVA, non-genitourinary (GU) cancer type, number of treatment modalities, and the phase (II or III compared to observational/other) were all significantly associated with higher EDD. Conclusions: Older adults were under-represented in this large sample of trials. This information can be used as a platform to better design disease-specific trials to improve older patient accrual, particularly in disease areas which are under-performing. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823: https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . References: 1. Smith BD et al. J Clin Oncol 27:2758-65, 2009; 2. Hurria A, et al. J Geriatr Oncol 1:40-44, 2010; 3. Pang HH, et al. J Clin Oncol, 2016.[Table: see text]

e18130 Background: Despite the disproportionate impact of cancer on older adults, older patients are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials that set the standards for cancer treatment. To better understand the reasons for this disparity, we conducted a systematic review of studies that have specifically examined barriers and interventions to improve clinical trial enrollment of older adults with cancer. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive two-step search strategy. First, we consulted an information specialist to develop an electronic search for the following databases from inception to January 15, 2019: PubMed, Ovid/Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Cochrane library. Second, references of retrieved key articles were screened for relevant studies. Two authors then independently reviewed all titles and abstracts (N = 10,985) and examined studies for full text eligibility (N = 221). Inclusion criteria were: 1) original research; 2) study assessed barriers and/or interventions to enrollment in oncology clinical trials; 3) included patients ≥ 60 years with cancer. Narrative reviews and abstracts without full text were excluded. Data was extracted by independent raters and summarized using a qualitative analysis software, NVivo v12. Results: 12 observational studies examining barriers and 1 randomized intervention were included. Barriers were assessed at the patient level (N = 5 studies), healthcare professional (HCP) level (N = 5), and both patient and HCP levels (N = 2). Stringent eligibility criteria (N = 7) and oncologists’ concerns for toxicity (N = 7) were the most common barriers cited. Patient barriers included transportation (N = 6), time/burden (N = 6), and awareness (N = 6). Although caregiver barriers (N = 4) were identified, none of the studies examined caregiver perceptions. One study evaluated a physician-directed educational intervention and found no significant impact on accrual of older adults. Conclusions: Although several studies have examined the barriers to accrual of older adults with cancer, only one intervention study has attempted to address these barriers. Given the aging of the cancer population, new strategies for including older adults in cancer clinical trials are critically needed.

11556 Background: Anxiety and depression are associated with decreased quality of life, treatment adherence, and survival in patients with cancer. Mental Health Inventory (MHI-17) is a validated screening tool for psychological well-being, but cut points for older adults with cancer are unknown. The goal of this study is to identify cut points on MHI-17 Anxiety (MHI-A) and Depression (MHI-D) subscales which correlate with patient-reported anxiety and depression in older adults with cancer. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial in adults aged 65+ with solid tumors starting chemotherapy. At baseline, patients completed MHI-17. MHI-A and MHI-D were calculated (range 0-100; higher scores represent better mental health). Self-reported anxiety was obtained from single-item Linear Analog Scale Assessment (0-5 = low, 6-10 = high). Self-reported depression was obtained from Yale Depression Screen, “Do you often feel sad or depressed?” The association of MHI-A and MHI-D with the patient-reported outcomes was analyzed using logistic regression. Youden’s index was used to determine the optimal cut points for MHI-A and MHI-D for identifying patients with high anxiety and depression. Results: 458 patients (median age 71 (range 65-91), 57% female, 55% non-Hispanic white) were included in this analysis. The most common cancer types were: GI (31%), breast (19%), GU (18%), and pulmonary (16%); 75% had stage IV cancer. Twenty-four percent (N = 110) reported high anxiety and 21% (N = 97) depression. Median scores for MHI-A and MHI-D were 75 (range 0-100) and 80 (range 0-100). The optimal cut point for high anxiety on MHI-A was 65; this had an accuracy of 76.1%, a sensitivity of 71.8%, and a specificity of 77.5%. The optimal cut point for depression on MHI-D was 70; this had an accuracy of 80.1%, a sensitivity of 80.4%, and a specificity of 79.8%. Conclusions: The current study identified optimal cut points for MHI-Anxiety and MHI-Depression subscales to identify older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy with self-reported anxiety and depression. In the absence of patient-reported anxiety and depression, these cut points could be used to identify older patients with cancer at risk for poor mental health.

e18066 Background: Social media may be an effective strategy to improve public awareness of oncology clinical trials and increase accrual. How oncologists perceive the role of social media in clinical trials now and in the future remains unknown. We explored oncologists’ attitudes and perceptions related to social media and clinical trial recruitment. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 44 medical oncologists at City of Hope from March to June 2018. Primary measures were oncologists’ self-reported benefits, concerns, and future interventions to leverage social media for trial recruitment. Secondary measures were facilitators and barriers to social media use for professional purposes. Responses were recorded digitally, transcribed, and de-identified. Data was managed using NVivo v12. Two analysts coded interview data using thematic content analysis (kappa = 0.7). Results: Of the 44 participants, 55% were academic and 45% were community oncologists, 36% were women, and 68% had > 10 years of experience. The most commonly cited benefit was increased awareness and visibility (63%). The most commonly cited concerns were: lack of time or support (31%), misinformation or oversimplification (31%), and lack of guidance (regulatory/ethical oversight) (28%). Oncologists reported a desire for an institutional-level intervention (e.g., personnel support with social media expertise) to facilitate trial recruitment using social media (50%). Oncologists’ perceptions of the facilitators to social media use for professional purposes were centered on networking (40%) and staying up to date in the field (33%). Perceived barriers were clustered around lack of comfort, training, time (38%), and lack of evidence of benefit (25%). No differences were identified between academic and community oncologists. Conclusions: Oncologists are hopeful that social media can increase awareness and visibility of cancer clinical trials. However, they have numerous concerns about the application of social media in clinical trials due to lack of time, support, and risk of misinformation. Further research is needed to examine whether social media can facilitate recruitment to oncology clinical trials.

Background: Older pts with BC receiving adjuvant tx are at increased risk of chemo tox; however, no BC-specific tool exists to quantify this risk. The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) developed/validated a chemo tox score for older pts with all stages of solid tumor. The goals of this study were to: 1) build upon the CARG score by developing/validating CARG-BC (a BC specific adjuvant chemo tox score for older pts) and 2) evaluate its association with dose modifications, reduced relative dose intensity (RDI) and hospitalizations. Methods: 501 pts age ≥65 with stage I-III BC from 16 sites were accrued (300 development; 201 validation cohort). A pre-chemo assessment captured: CARG chemo tox score, BC tumor/tx variables, and additional geriatric assessment (GA) items. Grade 3-5 chemo tox by NCI CTCAE v 4.0 was captured. Univariate analysis identified chemo tox risk factors (p Results: Among 501 pts, 28 received non-standard regimens and were excluded, leaving 473 evaluable pts: 283 development and 190 validation cohort. The development cohort (median age 70; range 65-85) had Stage I (39%), II (41%), & III (20%) BC with 65% hormone positive, 24% triple negative, 27% Her2 positive; and 37% received an anthracycline. Grade 3-5 tox occurred in 46% (36% grade 3, 10% grade 4, 0.4% grade 5). The CARG score was significantly associated with grade 3-5 tox (p Conclusions: We developed and validated a risk score (CARG-BC) which identifies an older pt's risk for adjuvant BC chemo tox and is associated with dose reduction, delay, reduced RDI, and hospitalization. This tool could be considered as a part of adjuvant tx decision-making. Chemo Tox Risk Score for BC (CARG-BC) Grade 3-5 Tox (%)ScoreCARG-Score: age, # of chemo drugs, dose, hemoglobin, creatinine clearance, hearing, falls, ability to walk 1 block and take meds, decreased social activitiesLow360Middle573High613StageI330II/III552Planned Tx Duration≤ 3 mo.330> 3 mo.584AnthracyclineNo380Yes591Liver FunctionNormal450Abnormal623Ability to Walk a MileNot limited370Limited613Someone to Provide AdviceMost of Time440None to Some of Time613 CARG-BC Risk ScoreLow210-5Middle456-9High7910+ Citation Format: Hurria A, Magnuson A, Gross CP, Tew WP, Klepin HD, Wildes TM, Muss HB, Dotan E, Freedman R, O'Connor T, Dale W, Cohen HJ, Katheria V, Arsenyan A, Levi A, Kim H, Sun C-L. Development and validation of a chemotherapy toxicity (Chemo Tox) risk score for older patients (Pts) with breast cancer (BC) receiving adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment (Adjuvant Tx): A R01 and BCRF funded prospective multicenter study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS6-04.

Background: The potential for exploiting BRCA deficiencies with DNA repair inhibitors has both pre-clinical and clinical support. ABT-888 (veliparib), a DNA repair inhibitor initially thought to target Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerases (PARP), has demonstrated in vitro inhibition of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficient mouse embryonic stell cells, with a larger effect on BRCA1 cells. We report on the pre-planned interim analysis of the efficacy of single agent veliparib in patients with either BRCA1 or BRCA2-associated stage IV breast cancer. Methods: BRCA 1 or 2 carrier patients with stage IV breast cancer, with measurable disease, without prior exposure to a PARP inhibitor or a platinum compound in the metastatic setting, were eligible. Velapirib was administered orally, at doses of 400 mg twice daily. Dose adjustments based on toxicity were permitted. Patients progressing on velapirib alone received carboplatin at an AUC of 5, IV, given Q 21 days, and velapirib 150 mg twice daily (the maximum tolerated dose [MTD] of the combination from our completed Phase I study: J Clin Oncol 30, 2012 [suppl; abstr 1024]). Patients were to be accrued from 7 NCI NO1- supported consortia. Initially 10 patients were to be accrued to each stratum (BRCA1 and BRCA2) to provide evidence of single agent activity. If there was sufficient activity to warrant consideration of velapirib as single agent therapy (defined as 2 or more confirmed partial [PR] or better responses out of 10 per stratum), an additional 12 patients would be accrued per stratum. Results: 20 evaluable patients (11 BRCA1 and 9 BRCA2 [1 in screening]) have been accrued, the majority with lung or liver as visceral metastatic sites of disease. Median age (range) is 46 (29-68) years. Tumors from 9 patients were hormone receptor positive. BRCA1 cohort: 4 of 11 patients are off treatment at a median of 2 months (1-4); 1 patient stopped velapirib due to toxicity (grade 2 rash/pruritus, grade 2 vomiting), 3 stopped for progressive disease (one with an unconfirmed PR). Seven patients are still on single agent veliparib with 1 unconfirmed PR, and 1 patient with two evaluations showing stable disease. BRCA2 cohort: 2 patients are off treatment at 2 months for progressive disease, 7 are still on treatment with 1 confirmed PR, and 3 unconfirmed PRs. Data on patients receiving combination of velapirib and carboplatin after progression is too early. Treatment-related toxicity is being updated and has so far been reported from 14 patients: 1 patient had grade 3 fatigue, 1 patient with liver metastasis had both grade 3 alanine aminotransferase elevation and grade 3 abdominal pain. Grade 2 toxicities occurring in more than 1 patient included nausea/vomiting (6 patients), chills (2 patients), and fatigue (2 patients). Conclusion: Velapirib has single agent activity in both BRCA1 and BRCA2-associated stage IV breast cancer patients, and is well-tolerated. Mature response, treatment, and toxicity data will be presented. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-05.

There is a fairly consistent, albeit non-universal body of research documenting cognitive declines after cancer and its treatments. While few of these studies have included subjects aged 65 years and older, it is logical to expect that older patients are at risk of cognitive decline. Here, we use breast cancer as an exemplar disease for inquiry into the intersection of aging and cognitive effects of cancer and its therapies. There are a striking number of common underlying potential biological risks and pathways for the development of cancer, cancer-related cognitive declines, and aging processes, including the development of a frail phenotype. Candidate shared pathways include changes in hormonal milieu, inflammation, oxidative stress, DNA damage and compromised DNA repair, genetic susceptibility, decreased brain blood flow or disruption of the blood-brain barrier, direct neurotoxicity, decreased telomere length, and cell senescence. There also are similar structure and functional changes seen in brain imaging studies of cancer patients and those seen with "normal" aging and Alzheimer's disease. Disentangling the role of these overlapping processes is difficult since they require aged animal models and large samples of older human subjects. From what we do know, frailty and its low cognitive reserve seem to be a clinically useful marker of risk for cognitive decline after cancer and its treatments. This and other results from this review suggest the value of geriatric assessments to identify older patients at the highest risk of cognitive decline. Further research is needed to understand the interactions between aging, genetic predisposition, lifestyle factors, and frailty phenotypes to best identify the subgroups of older patients at greatest risk for decline and to develop behavioral and pharmacological interventions targeting this group. We recommend that basic science and population trials be developed specifically for older hosts with intermediate endpoints of relevance to this group, including cognitive function and trajectories of frailty. Clinicians and their older patients can advance the field by active encouragement of and participation in research designed to improve the care and outcomes of the growing population of older cancer patients.

Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Background: Increased expression of p16INK4a, a molecular marker of aging, is a hallmark of increased cellular senescence in most mammalian tissues. In human peripheral blood T-lymphocytes, expression of p16INK4a increases 10-fold between 20 and 80 years of age (Liu et al, Aging Cell, 2009). We hypothesized that higher "molecular age," as evidenced by increased T-cell expression of p16INK4a at the time of initiation of breast cancer (BC) chemotherapy (CRx), predicts increased treatment-related toxicity. Methods: Patients (pts) with early breast cancer scheduled to receive neoadjuvant (NA) or adjuvant (Adj) chemotherapy (CRx) had p16INK4a evaluation performed prior to treatment. Expression of p16INK4a mRNA in CD3+ T-lymphocytes was determined using TaqMan real time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Grade 3 and 4 (G3/4) hematologic (H) and non-hematologic (NH) toxicities (NCI CTCAE version 4) were assessed during and within 4 weeks of completion of CRx. Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests compared p16INK4a between groups. Results: 93 pts with Stage I-III BC and complete toxicity data during and within 4 weeks after completion of CRx have been accrued. Median age (range) was 52 (25-76). 48 (52%) of pts were hormone receptor (HR) positive, 21 (23%) HER-2 positive, and 24 (26%) triple-negative. 39 (42%) received NA and 54 (58%) received Adj CRx. 57 pts (61%) received an anthracycline containing combination and 21 (23%) cyclophosphamide/docetaxel (TC). 85 pts (91%) received pegfilgrastim. Overall, 69 pts (74%) had a G3/4 toxicity during or ≤4 wks of CRx, 54% NH and 40% H. 22 pts (24%) were hospitalized for CRx related toxicity and 11 (12%) of these admissions were for neutropenic fever (NF). 23 (25%) reported G3/4 fatigue during CRx and had significantly higher p16INK4a values at baseline than those without fatigue (p=0.03). There was no significant association of baseline p16INK4a and other NH or H toxicity or hospitalization in this cohort. Conclusion: In this small sample of pts treated with anthracycline and non-anthracycline containing NA and Adj CRx regimens, there was a significant association of baseline p16INK4a and G3/4 fatigue. The heterogeneity of treatment and use of pegfilgrastim in almost all pts limits the power of this study to find significant relationships between p16INK4a and other toxicities. The cohort for this study is being expanded to further explore p16INK4a as a predictor for G3/4 toxicity. Support: Breast Cancer Treatment Foundation, New York, NY; University Cancer Research Fund, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Citation Format: Hyman Muss, Allison Deal, Arti Hurria, Natalia Mitin, Chad Torrice, Krishnamurthy Janakiraman, Trevor Jolly, Grant Williams, Shani Alston, Jerard West, Laura Zavala, Vani Katheria, Norman Sharpless. p16INK4a expression and chemotherapy toxicity in women with early stage breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-34.

Objectives Patients ≥ 65 years old (“older”) are often not included in randomized clinical trials (RCT), but when they are, care in an RCT might improve quality of life (QoL). We conducted a prospective comparison of QoL among older women receiving standard chemotherapy from the same cooperative group physicians in an RCT vs. an observational study (“off-trial”). Methods Older women with invasive, non-metastatic breast cancer (n = 150 RCT; 530 off-trial) were included. Linear mixed-effects models tested associations between chemotherapy on- vs. off-trial and changes in EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) QoL scores over 24 months, controlling for pre-treatment QoL, age, education, tumor factors, comorbidity, and other covariates. Results Anthracycline regimens were used by 58% of women treated on-trial vs. 54% of those treated off-trial. Women in the RCT reported an adjusted mean increase of 13.7 points (95% CI 10.2, 17.1) in global QoL at 24 months (vs. mid-treatment), while women treated off-trial had only an adjusted improvement of 7.0 points (95% CI 3.5, 10.4; p = .007 for difference in mean changes). Women in the RCT had significantly greater improvement in emotional function than those treated off-trial, controlling for baseline; they also had greater reductions in therapy side effects and fatigue at 24 months than women off-trial, controlling for covariates. Conclusion There may be different QoL trajectories for older women undergoing breast cancer chemotherapy on- vs. off-trial. If confirmed, the results suggest that the extra monitoring and communication within an RCT could provide the infrastructure for interventions to address symptoms and improve QoL for the growing older cancer population.

Results: Findings provide evidence that the one-on-one tailored approach is a feasible and acceptable method of providing a bilingual psychosocial intervention. The provision of printed bilingual information along with the verbal instruction from a bilingual and culturally competent health care provider can be effective in helping Latina breast cancer survivor’s transition successfully into survivorship, improve QOL and contribute to better patient outcomes. Conclusions: The study informs our understanding of the cultural context in patient education content and delivery of psychosocial interventions. The fi ndings may also have relevance for other ethnic minority cancer survivors.

Cognitive changes in older women receiving chemotherapy are poorly understood. We examined self-reported cognitive function for older women who received adjuvant chemotherapy on Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 49907. CALGB 49907 randomized 633 women aged ≥65 with stage I–III breast cancer to standard adjuvant chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide–methotrexate–5-fluoro-uracil or doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide) versus capecitabine. We examined self-reported cognitive function in 297 women (CALGB 361002) who enrolled on the quality of life substudy and had no gross impairment on cognitive screening. Women were evaluated using an 18-item instrument at six time points (baseline through 24 months). At each time point for each patient, we calculated a cognitive function score (CFS) defined as the mean response of items 1–18 and defined impairment as a score >1.5 standard deviations above the overall average baseline score. Differences in scores by patient characteristics were evaluated using a Kruskal–Wallis test. A linear mixed-effects model was used to assess CFSs by treatment over time. Among 297 women, the median age was 71.5 (range 65–85) and 73 % had performance status of 0. Baseline depression and fatigue were reported in 6 and 14 % of patients, respectively. The average CFS at baseline was 2.08 (corresponding to “normal ability”), and baseline cognitive function did not differ by treatment regimen (p = 0.350). Over 24 months, women reported minimal changes at each time point and insignificant differences by treatment arm were observed. In a healthy group of older women, chemotherapy was not associated with longitudinal changes in self-reported cognitive function.

Whether a patient is a candidate for cancer therapy goes far beyond the person's age. To evaluate an older adult for cancer treatment, oncologists must understand the benefits and quantify the risks of the proposed treatment, determine the patient's decision-making capacity, and make the decision in collaboration with the patient's preferences and values. In her presentation at the NCCN 18th Annual Conference, Dr. Arti Hurria discussed the major components in the comprehensive geriatric assessment in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Senior Adult Oncology, focusing on functional (rather than chronologic) age, comorbidities, nutritional status, cognitive impairment, and psychosocial support. By uncovering problems possibly left undetected on a routine history and physical examination, this assessment may lead to interventions that improve health and wellbeing in older people with cancer.

Learning Objectives Compare characteristics of older patients that receive bevacizumab plus chemotherapy to those treated with chemotherapy alone for advanced NSCLC and CRC. Compare outcomes between older patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone for advanced NSCLC and CRC. Describe toxicities in older patients treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC and CRC. Background. Bevacizumab leads to improved survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when added to chemotherapy. Little is known about factors associated with receipt of bevacizumab, or whether bevacizamab is associated with increased toxicity when added to chemotherapy. Patients and Methods. We conducted a prospective study of patients aged ≥65 years, which evaluated the association between geriatric assessment (GA) metrics and chemotherapy toxicity. We examined differences in characteristics and outcomes of patients with CRC and NSCLC cancers who received bevacizumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Results. From a total of 207 patients, 27 (13%) received bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and 180 (87%) received chemotherapy alone. Groups were similar in sociodemographic and cancer characteristics. There were no baseline differences in GA domains except that patients with heart disease were less likely to receive bevacizumab (4% vs. 26%, p = .01). Seventy-eight percent of patients who had bevacizumab had grade 3–5 toxicity compared to only 57% who received chemotherapy alone (p = .06). Patients receiving bevacizumab were more likely to develop grade 3 hypertension than those who received chemotherapy alone (15% vs. 2%, p < .01). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with grade 3 or more toxicity included: bevacizumab (OR: 2.86, p = .04), CRC (OR: 2.54, p < .01), and baseline anemia (OR: 2.58, p = .03). Conclusion. Heart disease was more common in those who did not receive bevacizumab. Older patients who receive bevacizumab with chemotherapy have a higher odds of developing a grade 3–5 toxicity compared with those who receive chemotherapy alone.

Background. The Cancer-Specific Geriatric Assessment (CSGA) is a primarily self-administered paper survey of validated measures. Methods. We developed and tested the feasibility of a computer-based CSGA in patients ≥70 years of age who were receiving treatment for gastrointestinal malignancies at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. From December 2009 to June 2011, patients were invited to complete the CSGA at baseline (start of new treatment) and follow-up (at the first of 4 months later or within 4 weeks of completing treatment). Feasibility endpoints were proportion of eligible patients consented, proportion completing CSGA at baseline and follow-up, time to complete CSGA, and proportion of physicians reporting CSGA results that led to a change in clinical decision-making. Results. Of the 49 eligible patients, 38 consented (76% were treatment naive). Median age was 77 years (range: 70–89 years), and 48% were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Mean physician-rated Karnofsky Performance Status was 87.5 at baseline (SD 8.4) and 83.5 at follow-up (SD 8). At baseline, 92% used a touchscreen computer; 97% completed the CSGA (51% independently). At follow-up, all patients used a touchscreen computer; 71% completed the CSGA (41% independently). Mean time to completion was 23 minutes at baseline (SD 8.4) and 20 minutes at follow-up (SD 5.1). The CSGA added information to clinical assessment for 75% at baseline (n = 27) and 65% at follow-up (n = 17), but it did not alter immediate clinical decision-making. Conclusion. The computer-based CSGA feasibility endpoints were met, although approximately half of patients required assistance. The CSGA added information to clinical assessment but did not affect clinical decision-making, possibly due to limited alternate treatment options in this subset of patients.

Breast cancer disproportionately affects Latina women living in the United States (US) and is the primary cause of cancer related deaths in this population. (Siegel, Naishadham, & Jemal, 2012). Compared to non-Latina Whites, Latinas are diagnosed with less favorable prognosis, at a younger age, higher grade, larger tumors, later stage, ER-and triple negative tumors and have a lower survival rate (Wu et al., 2012). The 5-year survivorship rate is 83.3 % for Latinas compared to 88.8% for non-Latina Whites (DeSantis, Siegel, Bandi, & Jemal, 2011). Important ethnic variations exist as to the type of treatment Latina and other ethnic minorities receive including an increased risk for treatment delays, access to care and lower quality of care (Freedman, He, Winer, & Keating, 2009; Parise, Bauer, & Caggiano, 2012). These differences in treatment have important potential negative effects on QOL. Despite some beginning studies in this area, intervention testing addressesing physical, psychological, social and spiritual aspects of QOL in Latina breast cancer survivors has not occurred (Ashing-Giwa & Lim, 2009; Ashing-Giwa, Rosales, Lai, & Weitzel, 2012; Ashing-Giwa, Padilla, Bohorquez, Tejero, & Garcia, 2006; Bowen et al., 2007; Eversley et al., 2005; Lim, Gonzalez, Wang-Letzkus, & Ashing-Giwa, 2009; Lopez-Class, Gomez-Duarte, Graves, & Ashing-Giwa, 2012; Lopez-Class, Perret-Gentil, et al., 2011; Paskett et al., 2008; Sammarco, 2009; Sammarco & Konecny, 2008; Wildes, Miller, Majors, & Ramirez, 2009). In 2011, there were more than 2.6 million breast cancer survivors in the US (DeSantis et al., 2011). Improving the QOL of cancer survivors has been identified as a public health priority by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, “From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition,” and numerous other organizations. A recent IOM report also highlighted the need to evaluate QOL during the key period following the end of initial diagnosis and treatment (Hewitt, Greenfield, & Stovall, 2006). Latinos are currently the largest and the fastest-growing ethnic minority group in the United States (Pew Hispanic Center, 2010). Thus as the Latino population continues to grow, so will the cohort of Latina breast cancer survivors living with the consequences of cancer and cancer related treatment. Although there is a large body of research addressing breast cancer QOL, relatively few studies have focused on the post-treatment experience of Latina breast cancer survivors. The Latino population does not have access to the same quality of care as mainstream America. Lack of access to care can be influenced by many factors including insurance status, linguistic isolation, low education, insufficient information, language barriers, immigration status, racism, acculturation, lack of understanding of the US health care system and scarcity of ethnically and culturally sensitive health care facilities (Bradley, Given, & Roberts, 2002; Guidry, Torrence, & Heberin, 2005). Even with the largest rate of labor force participation of all ethnic groups, Latinos are the poorest minority group and have the highest uninsured rate among all ethnic groups (Pew Hispanic Center, 2010). Acculturation levels have been shown to be associated with positive and negative health behaviors and outcomes among Latinos (Arcia, Skinner, Bailey, & Correa, 2001). While language skills improve, health living behaviors may decrease. Length of time living in the United States and acculturation are considered to be potential stressors due to problems with language, isolation from support systems, and fewer social ties. Studies have documented that as acculturation increases, traditional values toward family support decreased (Insaf, Jurkowski, & Alomar, 2010). These factors then contribute to increased psychological distress. Some risk factors for psychological distress associated with breast cancer among women of Mexican ancestry vary according to their level of acculturation. Level of acculturation is also influenced by various factors including age, place of residence, employment and social networks (Thomson & Hoffman-Goetz, 2009). This literature review reveals a lack of studies of Hispanic breast cancer survivors and a need to test a culturally congruent intervention. The purpose of this pilot study was to test the effectiveness of an English/Spanish education intervention to assist Latina breast cancer survivors transition into survivorship. Nueva Luz (New Light) is a bilingual breast cancer educational intervention designed to improve the quality of life (QOL) of Latina breast cancer survivors after completing primary treatment.

Background: While aromatase inhibitors are effective for ER/PR positive breast cancer, resistance frequently develops. EXE is a steroidal AI and has a weak hormone-like activity. Long-term EXE treatment up-regulated amphiregulin-mediated EGFR activation and EXE resistance could result from ER-EGFR cross-talk. In cell culture and animal studies, acquired resistance to EXE was significantly delayed with intermittent use, associated with decreased production of amphiregulin. For first line therapy in MBC, EXE had a median progression free survival (PFS) of 10 mos. As second and third line therapies, PFS decreased to 4.7 mos and 2 mos, respectively. After ≥ 2 of prior endocrine therapy, PFS to EXE ranged between 3.4 mos to 3.7 mos. The rationale for this study was that after long-term estrogen deprivation clinically equivalent to long-term exposure to AI, estrogen may induce apoptosis. With intermittent EXE use, we hope to delay the acquired AI resistance. Methods: Aims were to: 1) assess the PFS and 2) compete response (CR), partial response (PR) and clinical benefit rate [CBR=CR +PR + Stable disease (SD)≥ 6 mos], assessment of toxicity, compliance with medication adherence, and quality of life with assessment of bone health. The study included: 1) ER/PR positive MBC in first, second line/third line hormonal therapy, and one prior chemotherapy for MBC with no prior EXE allowed. EXE was given 25 mg daily × 14 days then 7 days off treatment, each 21-day cycle, imaging was done after every three cycles. Correlatives with estradiol level were drawn at day 1 and day 15 in each cycle. Results: From June 2008 to 2012 we enrolled 33 MBC patients ER/PR positive MBC with a median age of 60 yrs (42–79). At this cut off data date, 2 were inevaluable due to incidental colon cancer and change in treatment choice. 17 patients received treatment as first line (52%), 10 as second or third line hormonal therapy (30%), and 6 who received chemotherapy for MBC (18%). Median PFS and (95% CI) was 6.2 mos (1.9–12.2), 4.2 mos (2.1–10.1), and 3.2 mos (2.1-NR), respectively. For first line patients, there were 3 PRs and 4 with SD>6 mos for a CBR of 7/14 (50%). For second/third line, there were 3 with SD>6 mos for a CBR of 3/9(33%), no response seen in the prior chemotherapy group. The major metastatic sites included bone, liver, lung. 4 patients were Her2+ (13%). Adverse effects including hot flashes (62%), insomnia (31%), nausea (24%), bone pain (17%), fatigue (41%), joint pain (31%) were observed. Median number of cycles delivered is 6 (2–24) for first line, 5.5 (1–15) for second/third line, and 5 (2–9) for prior chemotherapy. Correlatives and QOL assessments are ongoing. Conclusions: Compared to the standard continuous EXE, PFS and CBR is inferior in the intermittent EXE as first line therapy, as second and third line therapy, the median PFS was 4.2 comparable to reported 3.7 mos with the CBR was 33% to 31.5% observed in the EFFECT trial. Interestingly, hot-flash rate was much higher at 62% compared to 11.2% in the EFFECT trial. Arthralgia is comparable at 31%. Patients who already received chemotherapy do not appear to respond favorably to intermittent hormonal therapy. Full response data with correlatives regarding the estradiol levels will be presented. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-08.

As the worldwide population ages, oncologists are often required to make difficult and complex decisions regarding the treatment of older people (aged 65 years and older) with cancer. Chronological age alone is often a poor indicator of the physiological and functional status of older adults, and thus should not be the main factor guiding treatment decisions in oncology. By contrast, a geriatric assessment can provide a much more comprehensive understanding of the functional and physiological age of an older person with cancer. The geriatric assessment is a multidimensional tool that evaluates several domains, including physical function, cognition, nutrition, comorbidities, psychological status, and social support. In this Series paper, we discuss the use of a geriatric assessment-based approach to cancer care, and provide clinicians with tools to better assess the risks and benefits of treatment to engage in shared decision making and provide better personalised care for older people with cancer.

Aging is the major risk factor for both the development of chronic diseases and loss of functional capacity. Geroscience provides links among the biology of aging, the biology of disease, and the physiology of frailty, three fields where enormous progress has been made in the last few decades. While, previously, the focus was on the role of aging in susceptibility to disease and disability, the other side of this relationship, which is the contribution of disease to aging, has been less explored at the molecular/cellular level. Indeed, the role of childhood or early adulthood exposure to chronic disease and/or treatment on accelerating aging phenotypes is well known in epidemiology, but the biological basis is poorly understood. A recent summit co-organized by the National Institutes of Health GeroScience Interest Group and the New York Academy of Sciences explored these relationships, using three chronic diseases as examples: cancer, HIV/AIDS, and diabetes. The epidemiological literature clearly indicates that early exposure to any of these diseases and/or their treatments results in an acceleration of the appearance of aging phenotypes, including loss of functional capacity and accelerated appearance of clinical symptoms of aging-related diseases not obviously related to the earlier event. The discussions at the summit focused on the molecular and cellular relationships between each of these diseases and the recently defined molecular and cellular pillars of aging. Two major conclusions from the meeting include the desire to refine an operational definition of aging and to concomitantly develop biomarkers of aging, in order to move from chronological to physiological age. The discussion also opened a dialogue on the possibility of improving late-life outcomes in patients affected by chronic disease by including age-delaying modalities along with the standard care for the disease in question.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computer-based geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture ( SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. Methods: Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. Results: The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil ( P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was “just right,” and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test–retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥ 0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. Conclusion: Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.

Purpose/objectives To assess nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of caring for older adults and to use that assessment data to develop a training program to improve skills in caring for older adults with cancer. . Design Survey of oncology nursing staff conducted pre- and posteducation regarding geriatric care. . Setting City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in southern California. . Sample 422 (baseline) and 375 (postintervention) nursing staff in adult care areas. . Methods The primary endpoint was the difference between baseline and postintervention knowledge. Secondary endpoints included differences in attitudes and perceptions of caring for older adults in an oncology setting. A two-sample t test was performed to compare the mean results between baseline and follow-up surveys. . Main research variables Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of caring for older adults. . Findings Survey comparisons from baseline to postintervention demonstrated statistically significant increases in nurses' knowledge of geriatric care after the implementation of an educational program targeted at oncology nurses. Nurses' attitudes remained the same pre- versus posteducation. A significant change reflecting a better perception was noted in the burden of behavioral problems; however, a worsening was noted in disagreements among staff; disagreements involving staff, patients, and families; and limited access to geriatric services. Both surveys highlighted the need to provide more education for staff about geriatric care issues and to make available more geriatric-specific resources. . Conclusions Knowledge about caring for older adults is needed for oncology nurses, and a geriatric education program for oncology nurses can result in improved knowledge in a variety of domains. Surveying staff highlighted the positive attitude of nurses toward caring for older adults at the study institution. The use of this survey identified key issues facing older adults and ways to improve care. . Implications for nursing Additional knowledge about caring for older adults for oncology nurses and assistive staff is needed to prepare for the increasing population of older adults with cancer. Continuous learning is key to professional development, and more research is needed on how to best continue to integrate knowledge of geriatric concepts into oncology care.

Frailty has been suggested as a construct for oncologists to consider in treating older cancer patients. Therefore, the authors assessed the potential of creating a deficit-accumulation frailty index (DAFI) from a largely self-administered comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA).Five hundred patients aged ≥65 years underwent a CGA before receiving chemotherapy. A DAFI was constructed, resulting in a 51-item scale, and cutoff values were examined for patients in the robust/nonfrail (cutoff value, 0.0 0.2), prefrail (cutoff value, 0.2 0.35), and frail (cutoff value, ≥ 0.35) groups.Two hundred and fifty patients (50%) were nonfrail, 197 (39%) were prefrail, and 52 (11%) were frail. Older patients (aged ≥ 80 years) and those who had lower education, were living alone, and had higher stage disease were associated with prefrail/frail status. Prefrail/frail patients were more likely to have grade ≥3 toxicity but not to have a dose delay or reduction, and they were more likely to discontinue drug and be hospitalized. The association with grade ≥3 toxicity was attenuated by controlling for a toxicity risk calculator, but the other outcomes were not.A deficit-accumulation frailty index can be constructed from a CGA in older patients with cancer and can indicate the frailty status of the population. The frailty status so determined is associated both with outcomes likely because of chemotherapy toxicity and with those likely because of age-related physiologic and functional deficits and thus can be useful in the overall assessment of the patient. Cancer 2016;122:3865-3872. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

An accumulating body of evidence supports the hypothesis that cancer and/or cancer treatment is associated with accelerated aging. The majority of these data come from the pediatric literature; however, a smaller yet growing body of literature points toward similar findings in the geriatric population. This is a key survivorship issue the growing number of older adults with cancer face, along with the short- and long-term impact of cancer therapy on the aging process. This article will review clinical and biologic markers of aging in older adults with cancer, use cardiovascular disease as a model of accelerated aging, and discuss potential interventions to decrease the risk.

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.

Purpose A Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) guideline on the selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer including adjuvant targeted therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancers was identified for adaptation. Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for adapting clinical practice guidelines developed by other organizations. The CCO guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor and content applicability. Results On the basis of the content review of the CCO guideline, the ASCO Panel agreed that, in general, the recommendations were clear and thorough and were based on the most relevant scientific evidence, and they presented options that will be acceptable to patients. However, for some topics addressed in the CCO guideline, the ASCO Panel formulated a set of adapted recommendations on the basis of local context and practice beliefs of the Panel members. Recommendations Decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy regimens should take into account baseline recurrence risk, toxicities, likelihood of benefit, and host factors such as comorbidities. In high-risk HER2-negative populations with excellent performance status, anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimens are the standard of care. Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide for four cycles is an acceptable non-anthracycline regimen. In high-risk HER2-positive disease, sequential anthracycline and taxanes administered concurrently with trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab for six cycles are recommended. An alternative regimen in a lower-risk, node-negative, HER2-positive population is paclitaxel and trastuzumab once per week for 12 cycles. Trastuzumab should be given for 1 year. Platinum salts should not be routinely administered in the adjuvant triple-negative population until survival efficacy data become available.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in both developing and developed countries. It is also a particularly significant health problem in older populations since half of all malignancies occur in patients aged 70 years or older. Cancer is a disease of aging, and as such there is a strong biological association between the mechanisms of aging and carcinogenesis. During the past few decades, mechanisms of aging exerting pro- and anti-oncogenic effects have been described, and the role of these mechanisms in cancer treatment and prognosis is currently being investigated. In this review we describe the different theories of aging and the evidence on the biological link between these mechanisms and carcinogenesis. Additionally, we review the implications of the biology of aging on the treatment and prognosis of older adults with cancer, and the opportunities for translational research into biomarkers of aging in this patient population.

The research was to appraise the utility of the patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDXs) as models of estrogen receptor positive (ER+HER2- and ER+HER2+) breast cancers. We compared protein expression profiles by Reverse Phase Protein Array (RPPA) in tumors that resulted in PDXs compared to those that did not. Our overall PDX intake rate for ER+ breast cancer was 9% (9/97). The intake rate for ER+HER2+ tumors (3/16, 19%) was higher than for ER+HER2- tumors (6/81, 7%). Heat map analyses of RPPA data showed that ER+HER2- tumors were divided into 2 groups by luminal A/B signature [protein expression of ER, AR, Bcl-2, Bim (BCL2L11), GATA3 and INPP4b], and this expression signature was also associated with the rate of PDX intake. Cell survival pathways such as the PI3K/AKT signaling and RAS/ERK pathways were more activated in the specimens that could be established as PDX in both classes. Expression of the ER protein itself may have a bearing on the potential success of an ER+ PDX model. In addition, HER2 and its downstream protein expressions were up-regulated in the ER+HER2+ patient tumors that were successfully established as PDX models. Moreover, the comparison of RPPA data between original and PDX tumors suggested that the selection/adaptation process required to grow the tumors in mice is unavoidable for generation of ER+ PDX models, and we identified differences between patient tumor samples and paired PDX tumors. A better understanding of the biological characteristics of ER+PDX would be the key to using PDX models in assessing treatment strategies in a preclinical setting.

Background: Predicting breast cancer outcome in older patients is challenging, as it has been shown that the available tools are not accurate in older patients. The PREDICT tool may serve as an alternative tool, as it was developed in a cohort that included almost 1800 women aged 65 years or over. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the online PREDICT tool in a population-based cohort of unselected older patients with breast cancer. Methods: Patients were included from the population-based FOCUS-cohort. Observed 5- and 10-year overall survival were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and compared with predicted outcomes. Calibration was tested by composing calibration plots and Poisson Regression. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed by composing receiver-operator-curves and corresponding c-indices. Results: In all 2012 included patients, observed and predicted overall survival differed by 1.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=−0.3–3.7, for 5-year overall survival, and 4.5%, 95% CI=2.3–6.6, for 10-year overall survival. Poisson regression showed that 5-year overall survival did not significantly differ from the ideal line (standardised mortality ratio (SMR)=1.07, 95% CI=0.98–1.16, P=0.133), but 10-year overall survival was significantly different from the perfect calibration (SMR=1.12, 95% CI=1.05–1.20, P=0.0004). The c-index for 5-year overall survival was 0.73, 95% CI=0.70–0.75, and 0.74, 95% CI=0.72–0.76, for 10-year overall survival. Conclusions: PREDICT can accurately predict 5-year overall survival in older patients with breast cancer. Ten-year predicted overall survival was, however, slightly overestimated.

BACKGROUND The number of survivors of breast cancer aged ≥65 years (“older”) is growing, but to the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the cognitive outcomes of these individuals. METHODS A cohort of cognitively intact older survivors with nonmetastatic, invasive breast cancer was recruited from 78 sites from 2004 through 2011; approximately 83.7% of the survivors (1280 survivors) completed baseline assessments. Follow‐up data were collected at 6 months and annually for up to 7 years (median, 4.1 years). Cognitive function was self‐reported using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ‐C30); scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating better function. Group‐based trajectory modeling determined trajectories; women were assigned to a trajectory group based on the highest predicted probability of membership. Multinomial logistic regression evaluated the association between receipt of chemotherapy (with or without hormonal treatment) and trajectory group. RESULTS Survivors were aged 65 to 91 years; approximately 41% received chemotherapy. There were 3 cognitive trajectories: “maintained high” (42.3% of survivors); “phase shift” (50.1% of survivors), with scores slightly below but parallel to maintained high; and “accelerated decline” (7.6% of survivors), with the lowest baseline scores and greatest decline (from 71.7 [standard deviation, 19.8] to 58.3 [standard deviation, 21.9]). The adjusted odds of being in the accelerated decline group (vs the maintained high group) were 2.1 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.3‐3.5) for survivors who received chemotherapy (with or without hormonal therapy) versus those treated with hormonal therapy alone. Greater comorbidity and frailty also were found to be associated with accelerated decline. CONCLUSIONS Trajectory group analysis demonstrated that the majority of older survivors maintained good long‐term self‐reported cognitive function, and that only a small subset who were exposed to chemotherapy manifested accelerated cognitive decline. Future research is needed to determine factors that place some older survivors at risk of experiencing cognitive decline. Cancer 2016;122:3555–3563. © 2016 American Cancer Society, Among older survivors of breast cancer who were followed for up to 7 years, approximately 42% reported maintaining high cognitive function, but receipt of chemotherapy (with or without hormonal therapy) appeared to double the odds of being in the group that reported accelerated cognitive decline (vs maintaining high function), compared with receiving hormonal treatment alone. Further research is needed to determine factors that place some older survivors at risk of experiencing cognitive decline.

Purpose To investigate whether anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy with bevacizumab prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) when added to first-line letrozole as treatment of hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods Women with hormone receptor–positive MBC were randomly assigned 1:1 in a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial of letrozole (2.5 mg orally per day) with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks) within strata defined by measurable disease and disease-free interval. This trial had 90% power to detect a 50% improvement in median PFS from 6 to 9 months. Using a one-sided α = .025, a target sample size of 352 patients was planned. Results From May 2008 to November 2011, 350 women were recruited; 343 received treatment and were observed for efficacy and safety. Median age was 58 years (range, 25 to 87 years). Sixty-two percent had measurable disease, and 45% had de novo MBC. At a median follow-up of 39 months, the addition of bevacizumab resulted in a significant reduction in the hazard of progression (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.96; P = .016) and a prolongation in median PFS from 15.6 months with letrozole to 20.2 months with letrozole plus bevacizumab. There was no significant difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.18; P = .188), with median overall survival of 43.9 months with letrozole versus 47.2 months with letrozole plus bevacizumab. The largest increases in incidence of grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicities with the addition of bevacizumab were hypertension (24% v 2%) and proteinuria (11% v 0%). Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to letrozole improved PFS in hormone receptor–positive MBC, but this benefit was associated with a markedly increased risk of grade 3 to 4 toxicities. Research on predictive markers will be required to clarify the role of bevacizumab in this setting.

Older adults with cancer represent a complex patient population. Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to evaluate the medical and supportive care needs of this group. "GA with management" is a term encompassing the resultant medical decisions and interventions implemented in response to vulnerabilities identified on GA. In older, non-cancer patients, GA with management has been shown to improve a variety of outcomes, such as reducing functional decline and health care utilization. However, the role of GA with management in the older adult with cancer is less well established. Rigorous clinical trials of GA with management are necessary to develop an evidence base and support its use in the routine oncology care of older adults. At the recent U-13 conference, "Design and Implementation of Intervention Studies to Improve or Maintain Quality of Survivorship in Older and/or Frail Adults with Cancer," a session was dedicated to developing research priorities in GA with management. Here we summarize identified knowledge gaps in GA with management studies for older patients with cancer and propose areas for future research.

Comorbidity is an issue of growing importance due to changing demographics and the increasing number of adults over the age of 65 with cancer. The best approach to the clinical management and decision-making in older adults with comorbid conditions remains unclear. In May 2015, the Cancer and Aging Research Group, in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging, met to discuss the design and implementation of intervention studies in older adults with cancer. A presentation and discussion on comorbidity measurement, interventions, and future research was included. In this article, we discuss the relevance of comorbidities in cancer, examine the commonly used tools to measure comorbidity, and discuss the future direction of comorbidity research. Incorporating standardized comorbidity measurement, relaxing clinical trial eligibility criteria, and utilizing novel trial designs are critical to developing a larger and more generalizable evidence base to guide the management of these patients. Creating or adapting comorbidity management strategies for use in older adults with cancer is necessary to define optimal care for this growing population.

Cancer and neurocognitive disorders, such as dementia and delirium, are common and serious diseases in the elderly that are accompanied by high degree of morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, evidence supports the under-diagnosis of both dementia and delirium in older adults. Complex questions exist regarding the interaction of dementia and delirium with cancer, beginning with guidelines on how best measure disease severity, the optimal screening test for either disorder, the appropriate level of intervention in the setting of abnormal findings, and strategies aimed at preventing the development or progression of either process. Ethical concerns emerge in the research setting, pertaining to the detection of cognitive dysfunction in participants, validity of consent, disclosure of abnormal results if screening is pursued, and recommended level of intervention by investigators. Furthermore, understanding the ways in which comorbid cognitive dysfunction and cancer impact both cancer and non-cancer-related outcomes is essential in guiding treatment decisions. In the following article, we will discuss what is presently known of the interactions of pre-existing cognitive impairment and delirium with cancer. We will also discuss identified deficits in our knowledge base, and propose ways in which innovative research may address these gaps.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colon cancer increases with age, and colon cancer predominantly affects individuals >65 years old. However, there are limited data regarding clinical and pathologic factors, treatment characteristics, and survival of older patients with colon cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of increasing age on colon cancer. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with colon cancer between 1988 and 2006 were identified through the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program, in Southern California. Patients were stratified into 4 age groups: 18-49, 50-64, 65-79, and ≥80 years. Clinical and pathologic characteristics and disease-specific and overall survival were compared between patients from different age groups. RESULTS: A total of 32,819 patients were assessed. Patients aged 18 to 49 and 65 to 79 years represented the smallest and largest groups, respectively. A near equal number of males and females were diagnosed with colon cancer in the 3 youngest age groups, whereas patients who were ≥80 years old were more commonly white and female. Tumor location was different between groups, and the frequency of larger tumors (>5 cm) was greatest in youngest patients (18-49 years). The oldest patients (≥80 years) were administered chemotherapy at the lowest frequency, and disease-specific and overall survival rates decreased with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation demonstrates that older age is associated with alterations in clinical and pathologic characteristics and decreased survival. This suggests that the phenotype of colon cancer and the efficacy of colon cancer therapies may be dependent on the age of patients. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.

In general, the management and reported outcomes for elderly patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) have been similar to those of younger patients. But older adults are a distinct subpopulation of patients who differ from younger patients due to their increased risks for: comorbidities, decreased functional status, a potential decline in cognitive function and an increase in vulnerabilities. Older adults have been underrepresented in the clinical trials which define our best treatment strategies. This review explores the evidence used to establish common practice in managing SCCHN and evaluates the relevance of this evidence for the older adult, concluding with recommendations based on the review.

Overview: Breast cancer is a disease of aging. However, older women with breast cancer are less likely to participate in clinical trials or to receive recommended treatment. This undertreatment has contributed to a lag in breast cancer survival outcomes for older women compared with that for their younger counterparts. The principles that govern recommendations for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer are the same for younger and older women. Systemic adjuvant treatment recommendations should be offered on the basis of tumor characteristics that divide patients into three distinct subgroups. These include (1) older women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer who should be offered endocrine therapy; (2) older women with HR-negative and HER2-negative breast cancer who should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy; and (3) older women with HER2-positive disease who should be offered chemotherapy with trastuzumab. Exceptions to these guidelines may be made for older women with small node-negative tumors or frail older women with limited life expectancy, where close surveillance may be a reasonable alternative. Addressing the current age-related disparities in breast cancer survival will require that older women are offered the same state-of-the-art-treatment as their younger counterparts, with a careful weighing of the risks and benefits of each treatment in the context of the individual's preferences. In addition, older women should be encouraged to participate in breast cancer clinical trials to generate additional chemotherapy efficacy, toxicity, and quality of life data.

Older adults constitute the greatest percentage of cancer survivors in the country, with 61% being aged 65 years and older. Assessing older adult cancer survivors beyond chronological age to include changes in functional status is an essential process to help nurses anticipate cancer treatment impact and aid in planning individualized survivorship care. The objective of this article is to identify a method to assess older adult cancer survivors to be used in tailoring survivorship care. A review of geriatric literature was conducted through MEDLINE(®) and PubMed from 1997-2011 and focused on the pathophysiology of aging, cancer impact, and comorbidities in this population. Results were combined with previous research to provide an evidence-based approach to assessing older cancer survivors. The resulting assessment provides valuable information on the functional status of older adult patients with cancer. This assessment can be used by nurses to develop treatment plans and tailor management strategies to improve quality of life.