Search

Key Points Question Do older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer benefit from less intensive palliative chemotherapy, and can a formal geriatric assessment assist treatment decision-making? Findings This phase 3 randomized clinical trial including 559 patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer found that reducing the intensity of chemotherapy provided an improved patient experience with no significant detriment in cancer control. Baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (an inflammation marker) were predictive of outcome and may contribute to treatment decisions. Meaning Decision-making for older and/or frail patients with advanced cancer can be enhanced using geriatric assessment; such patients generally benefit from reducing the intensity of chemotherapy., This randomized clinical trial assesses the efficacy of reduced-intensity chemotherapy for patient quality of life and cancer control in the treatment of older and/or frail patients, Importance Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907

Background: GO2 sought to optimise chemotherapy dosing in older/frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Methods: Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable. Two randomisation options were available: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (doses as used in the standard epirubicin/oxaliplatin/capecitabine regimen), B (0·8x A) or C (0·6x A). Non-inferiority of PFS was assessed using boundary HR=1·34, selected by a forum of patients and clinicians. Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxicity, QL and patient value/acceptability, was scored at nine weeks. Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, they could enter the CHEMO-BSC randomisation, comparing Level C versus best supportive care. Findings: 514 patients entered the CHEMO-INTENSITY randomisation: non-inferior PFS was confirmed for B vs A (HR=1·09 [CI=0·89-1·32]) and C vs A (HR=1·10 [0·90-1·33]). Level C produced less toxicity and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in the younger, fitter patients. 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomisation: overall survival was non-significantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6·1 vs 3·0 months, HR=0·69 [0·32-1·48], p=0·34. In multivariate analysis, baseline frailty, QL and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, so can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of better or worse outcome. Interpretation: Reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided non-inferior efficacy with an improved patient experience. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy. Trial Registration: [Trial registration: ISRCTN44687907] Funding Statement: Cancer Research UK [CRUK/12/022] Declaration of Interests: Dr. Grabsch reports personal fees from Merck Sharpe Dome, outside the submitted work; all other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the UK National Research Ethics Service and overseen by independent Trial Steering and Data Monitoring & Ethics Committees (TSC; IDMC).