Baxter Mark A, Rowe Michael, Zucker Kieran, Peters Adam L, Rohan Maria, Marsh Alexandra, Gee Abigail L, Quesne Gemma, Heseltine Jonny, Prichard Rachel, Scott Deborah, O'Neill Conor, Brunner Clair, Howells Joni, Conteh Veronica, Aujayeb Avinash, Yan Xiangfei, Rodgers Lisa J, Martin Sally, Dearden Helen
Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee Division of Medical Sciences, Dundee, UK.
Tayside Cancer Centre, Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dundee, UK.
BMJ Oncol. 2024 Aug 29;3(1):e000459. doi: 10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000459. eCollection 2024.
The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) score was developed to predict severe chemotherapy-induced toxicity risk in older adults; validation study results have varied. The Tolerance of Anti-cancer Systemic Therapy in the Elderly study sought to evaluate the CARG score prospectively in a chemotherapy-naïve UK population.
This multicentre, prospective, observational study recruited patients aged ≥65 years commencing first-line chemotherapy for any solid organ malignancy or setting. Baseline demographics and established frailty measures were recorded. Follow-up data including toxicity and hospital admissions were collected retrospectively. Baseline CARG score predictive ability was assessed.
339 patients were recruited from 19 centres; median age 73 years (range 65-92), 51.9% male and 54.9% gastrointestinal primary. At baseline, 85% of patients were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, with median Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) 3 (range 0-8).314 (92.6%) patients had follow-up data; 69 (22.3%) patients experienced Common Terminology for Cancer Adverse Events grade ≥3 toxicity and 84 (27%) required hospital admission during treatment.Increasing CARG risk groups had increased grade ≥3 toxicity (low 19.6%, medium 22.2%, high 28.2%); however, this was non-significant with no evidence of robust predictive performance. Predictive performance of CFS and ECOG PS was superior to CARG. Importantly, patient and clinician perceptions of toxicity risk differed significantly.
In older UK patients with cancer commencing chemotherapy, baseline frailty was prevalent. CARG score did not robustly discriminate or predict high-grade toxicity risk. ECOG and CFS showed superior, although limited, ability to predict and discriminate. This study highlights the need for the development of tools that better predict toxicity in this population.
癌症与衰老研究组(CARG)评分旨在预测老年患者化疗引起的严重毒性风险;验证研究结果存在差异。老年抗癌全身治疗耐受性研究旨在对英国未接受过化疗的人群进行CARG评分的前瞻性评估。
这项多中心、前瞻性、观察性研究招募了年龄≥65岁、开始接受一线化疗治疗任何实体器官恶性肿瘤或疾病的患者。记录了基线人口统计学数据和既定的衰弱指标。回顾性收集包括毒性和住院情况在内的随访数据。评估了基线CARG评分的预测能力。
从19个中心招募了339名患者;中位年龄73岁(范围65 - 92岁),男性占51.9%,胃肠道原发性肿瘤患者占54.9%。基线时,85%的患者东部肿瘤协作组体能状态(ECOG PS)为0 - 1,Rockwood临床衰弱量表(CFS)中位数为3(范围0 - 8)。314名(92.6%)患者有随访数据;69名(22.3%)患者发生了癌症不良事件通用术语标准≥3级毒性反应,84名(27%)患者在治疗期间需要住院。CARG风险组增加时,≥3级毒性反应增加(低风险组为19.6%,中风险组为22.2%,高风险组为28.2%);然而,差异无统计学意义,没有证据表明其具有强大的预测性能。CFS和ECOG PS的预测性能优于CARG。重要的是,患者和临床医生对毒性风险的认知存在显著差异。
在英国开始化疗的老年癌症患者中,基线衰弱情况普遍。CARG评分不能可靠地区分或预测高级别毒性风险。ECOG和CFS虽然预测和区分能力有限,但表现更优。本研究强调需要开发能更好地预测该人群毒性的工具。