6 research outputs found

    Chemotherapy-related toxic effects and quality of life and physical functioning in older patients

    Get PDF
    Importance  Although older patients are at increased risk of developing grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects, no studies, to our knowledge, have focused on the association between toxic effects and quality of life (QOL) and physical functioning.Objective  To investigate the association between grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects and QOL and physical functioning over time in older patients.Design, Setting, and Participants  In this prospective, multicenter cohort study, patients aged 70 years or older who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy with curative or palliative intent and a geriatric assessment were included. Patients were treated with chemotherapy between December 2015 and December 2021. Quality of life and physical functioning were analyzed at baseline and after 6 months and 12 months.Exposures  Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects.Main Outcomes and Measures  The main outcome was a composite end point, defined as a decline in QOL and/or physical functioning or mortality at 6 months and 12 months after chemotherapy initiation. Associations between toxic effects and the composite end point were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression models.Results  Of the 276 patients, the median age was 74 years (IQR, 72-77 years), 177 (64%) were male, 196 (71%) received chemotherapy with curative intent, and 157 (57%) had gastrointestinal cancers. Among the total patients, 145 (53%) had deficits in 2 or more of the 4 domains of the geriatric assessment and were classified as frail. Grade 3 or higher toxic effects were observed in 94 patients (65%) with frailty and 66 (50%) of those without frailty (P = .01). Decline in QOL and/or physical functioning or death was observed in 76% of patients with frailty and in 64% to 68% of those without frailty. Among patients with frailty, grade 3 or higher toxic effects were associated with the composite end point at 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.14-6.05) but not at 12 months (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45-2.64) and were associated with mortality at 12 months (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.50-8.33). Toxic effects were not associated with the composite end point in patients without frailty (6 months: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.36-1.64; 12 months: OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.46-2.43).Conclusions and Relevance  In this prospective cohort study of 276 patients aged 70 or older who were treated with chemotherapy, patients with frailty had more grade 3 or higher toxic effects than those without frailty, and the occurrence of toxic effects was associated with a decline in QOL and/or physical functioning or mortality after 1 year. Toxic effects were not associated with poor outcomes in patients without frailty. Pretreatment frailty screening and individualized treatment adaptions could prevent a treatment-related decline of remaining health.</p

    Visual and quantitative evaluation of [(18)F]FES and [(18)F]FDHT PET in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an interobserver variability study

    No full text
    Contains fulltext : 220741.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)PURPOSE: Correct identification of tumour receptor status is important for treatment decisions in breast cancer. [(18)F]FES PET and [(18)F]FDHT PET allow non-invasive assessment of the oestrogen (ER) and androgen receptor (AR) status of individual lesions within a patient. Despite standardised analysis techniques, interobserver variability can significantly affect the interpretation of PET results and thus clinical applicability. The purpose of this study was to determine visual and quantitative interobserver variability of [(18)F]FES PET and [(18)F]FDHT PET interpretation in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this prospective, two-centre study, patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer underwent both [(18)F]FES and [(18)F]FDHT PET/CT. In total, 120 lesions were identified in 10 patients with either conventional imaging (bone scan or lesions > 1 cm on high-resolution CT, n = 69) or only with [(18)F]FES and [(18)F]FDHT PET (n = 51). All lesions were scored visually and quantitatively by two independent observers. A visually PET-positive lesion was defined as uptake above background. For quantification, we used standardised uptake values (SUV): SUVmax, SUVpeak and SUVmean. RESULTS: Visual analysis showed an absolute positive and negative interobserver agreement for [(18)F]FES PET of 84% and 83%, respectively (kappa = 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.87), and 49% and 74% for [(18)F]FDHT PET, respectively (kappa = 0.23, 95% CI - 0.04-0.49). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for quantification of SUVmax, SUVpeak and SUVmean were 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.98), 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) for [(18)F]FES, and 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.85), 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.84) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.84) for [(18)F]FDHT, respectively. CONCLUSION: Visual and quantitative evaluation of [(18)F]FES PET showed high interobserver agreement. These results support the use of [(18)F]FES PET in clinical practice. In contrast, visual agreement for [(18)F]FDHT PET was relatively low due to low tumour-background ratios, but quantitative agreement was good. This underscores the relevance of quantitative analysis of [(18)F]FDHT PET in breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01988324. Registered 20 November 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01988324?term=FDHT+PET&draw=1&rank=2
    corecore