Stahl Michael Konrad, Ertl Sebastian Willy, Engelmeyer Pouneh, Heuer Hans-Christoph, Christoph Daniel Christian
Department of Medical Oncology und Hematology with Integrated Palliative Care, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
Centre of Emergency Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.
Oncol Res Treat. 2023;46(3):100-105. doi: 10.1159/000529097. Epub 2023 Feb 8.
Because of their individual vulnerabilities, treatment decisions for older patients can be difficult. Geriatric assessment (GA) may help to select patients for systemic treatment, but its value is still unproven. Older cancer patients (≥65 years of age) with and without complex GA followed by discussion in the geriatric-oncologic conference, who had been treated in palliative intention with standard combination chemotherapy at the Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had been orally informed about the treatment options and had chosen chemotherapy beside supportive care. To reduce selection bias, the method of propensity-score matching was performed. Patient groups treated in the years 2011-2013 (without GA, group 1) and in the years 2014-2015 (with GA, group 2) were compared regarding different toxicity endpoints. The primary endpoint of the study was defined as numbers of patients with unplanned admission to the hospital or death during first-line chemotherapy and GA should reduce these events by 15%. Overall, 114 patients were evaluated in both groups. The median age was 74 years. Patients suffered from gastrointestinal carcinomas (47%), lung cancer (28%), breast cancer (12%), and other cancer types (3%). Consequently, most patients were treated with platinum-based (41%), fluoropyrimidine-based (35%), or anthracycline-based (13%) combination chemotherapy. In group 2, the events were numerically lower for all toxicity endpoints. The need for a premature stop of treatment was 54.4% in group 1 compared to 29.8% in group 2 (p < 0.01) and also the treatment-related mortality was significantly lower in group 2 (17.5% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.04). The primary endpoint, the rate of unplanned hospital admission, and death was 49.1% versus 35.1% (difference 14.0%), which did not reach the predefined border of 15%. There was a nonsignificant overall survival benefit in the group with GA (22.6 vs. 18.4 months). GA appears useful to better select older patients with advanced cancer for combination chemotherapy. The significant reduction of mortality during chemotherapy justifies the efforts and costs which need to be expended. To evaluate the effect of GA on overall survival, prospective trials are required.
由于老年患者个体存在易损性,针对他们的治疗决策可能会很困难。老年评估(GA)或许有助于筛选适合进行全身治疗的患者,但其价值仍未得到证实。对埃森-米特福音医院以姑息治疗为目的采用标准联合化疗的老年癌症患者(≥65岁)进行了回顾性评估,这些患者有无进行复杂的老年评估并随后在老年肿瘤学会议上进行了讨论。所有患者均已口头被告知治疗方案,且除支持性治疗外还选择了化疗。为减少选择偏倚,采用了倾向评分匹配法。比较了2011 - 2013年治疗的患者组(无GA,第1组)和2014 - 2015年治疗的患者组(有GA,第2组)在不同毒性终点方面的情况。该研究的主要终点定义为一线化疗期间计划外住院或死亡的患者数量,且GA应使这些事件减少15%。总体而言,两组共评估了114例患者。中位年龄为74岁。患者所患癌症类型包括胃肠道癌(47%)、肺癌(28%)、乳腺癌(12%)以及其他癌症类型(3%)。因此,大多数患者接受了基于铂类(41%)、氟嘧啶类(35%)或蒽环类(13%)的联合化疗。在第2组中,所有毒性终点的事件在数值上均较低。第1组治疗提前终止的需求为54.4%,而第2组为29.8%(p < 0.01),并且第2组的治疗相关死亡率也显著更低(17.5%对5.3%;p = 0.04)。主要终点,即计划外住院率和死亡率,在第1组为49.1%,在第2组为35.1%(差值14.0%),未达到预先设定的15%的界限。接受GA的组有非显著的总生存获益(22.6个月对18.4个月)。GA似乎有助于更好地筛选适合联合化疗的老年晚期癌症患者。化疗期间死亡率的显著降低证明了所需付出的努力和成本是合理的。为评估GA对总生存的影响,需要进行前瞻性试验。