Controversial issues in the management of older adults with early breast cancer

It is well recognized that the incidence of breast cancer increases significantly with age. Despite this, older people remain under-represented in many clinical trials and their management relies on extrapolation of data from younger patients. Providing an aggressive intervention can be challenging, particularly in less fit older patients where a conservative approach is commonly perceived to be more appropriate. The optimal management of this population is unknown and treatment decision should be personalized. This review article will discuss several controversial issues in managing older adults with early breast cancer in a multidisciplinary setting, including the role of surgical treatment of the axilla in clinically node negative disease, radiotherapy after breast conservation surgery in low-risk tumours, personalizing adjuvant systemic therapy, and geriatric assessments in breast cancer treatment decisions

Adapting care for older cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) COVID-19 Working Group

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a barrier to equal and evidence-based management of cancer in older adults. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) formed a panel of experts to develop consensus recommendations on the implications of the pandemic on several aspects of cancer care in this age group including geriatric assessment (GA), surgery, radiotherapy, systemic treatment, palliative care and research. Age and cancer diagnosis are significant predictors of adverse outcomes of the COVID-19 infection. In this setting, GA is particularly valuable to drive decision-making. GA may aid estimating physiologic reserve and adaptive capability, assessing risk-benefits of either providing or temporarily withholding treatments, and determining patient preferences to help inform treatment decisions. In a resource-constrained setting, geriatric screening tools may be administered remotely to identify patients requiring comprehensive GA. Tele-health is also crucial to ensure adequate continuity of care and minimize the risk of infection exposure. In general, therapeutic decisions should favor the most effective and least invasive approach with the lowest risk of adverse outcomes. In selected cases, this might require deferring or omitting surgery, radiotherapy or systemic treatments especially where benefits are marginal and alternative safe therapeutic options are available. Ongoing research is necessary to expand knowledge of the management of cancer in older adults. However, the pandemic presents a significant barrier and efforts should be made to ensure equitable access to clinical trials and prospective data collection to elucidate the outcomes of COVID-19 in this population

Adjuvant Systemic Therapy in Older Breast Cancer Women: Can We Optimize the Level of Care?

Defining optimal adjuvant treatment for older women with breast cancer is challenged by the lack of level-1 clinical evidence and the heterogeneity of the older population. Nevertheless, recommendations based on reviews of available evidence mainly from retrospective subgroup analyses and extrapolation of study results from younger patients, and expert opinions, may be useful to guide treatment decisions in fit patients. But how can we properly define a “fit” older patient? In clinical practice, age by itself and clinical impression generally drive treatment decision, although the appropriateness of this judgment is under-documented. Such an approach risks overtreatment or, more frequently, undertreatment. A geriatric assessment can be valuable in oncology practice to address this issue. In this review article, we will focus only on systemic treatment and will discuss “standard” adjuvant systemic treatment strategies for fit older breast cancer patients and the role of “personalized” systemic therapy in unfit patients. The concepts conveyed in this review cannot be extrapolated to locoregional therapy

Geriatric assessment for older people with cancer: policy recommendations

Most cancers occur in older people and the burden in this age group is increasing. Over the past two decades the evidence on how best to treat this population has increased rapidly. However, implementation of new best practices has been slow and needs involvement of policymakers. This perspective paper explains why older people with cancer have different needs than the wider population. An overview is given of the recommended approach for older people with cancer and its benefits on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In older patients, the geriatric assessment (GA) is the gold standard to measure level of fitness and to determine treatment tolerability. The GA, with multiple domains of physical health, functional status, psychological health and socio-environmental factors, prevents initiation of inappropriate oncologic treatment and recommends geriatric interventions to optimize the patient’s general health and thus resilience for receiving treatments. Multiple studies have proven its benefits such as reduced toxicity, better quality of life, better patient-centred communication and lower healthcare use. Although GA might require investment of time and resources, this is relatively small compared to the improved outcomes, possible cost-savings and compared to the large cost of oncologic treatments as a whole

Screening for Frailty in Older Patients With Early-Stage Solid Tumors: A Prospective Longitudinal Evaluation of Three Different Geriatric Tools

Advance Access publication February 2, 2017Background: Frailty increases the risk of adverse health outcomes and/or dying when exposed to a stressor, and routine frailty assessment is recommended to guide treatment decision. The Balducci frailty criteria (BFC) and Fried frailty criteria (FFC) are commonly used, but these are time consuming. Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) score of ≥7, a simple and resource conserving function-based scoring system, may be used instead. This prospective study evaluates the performance of VES-13 in parallel with BFC and FFC, to identify frailty in elderly patients with early-stage cancer. Methods: Patients aged ≥70 years with early-stage solid tumors were classified as frail/nonfrail based on BFC (≥1 criteria), FFC (≥3 criteria), and VES-13 (score ≥ 7). All patients were assessed for functional decline and death. Results: We evaluated 185 patients. FFC had a 17% frailty rate, whereas BFC and VES-13 both had 25%, with poor concordance seen between the three geriatric tools. FFC (hazard ratio = 1.99, p = .003) and VES-13 (hazard ratio = 2.81, p < .001) strongly discriminated for functional decline, whereas BFC (hazard ratio = 3.29, p < .001) had the highest discriminatory rate for deaths. BFC and VES-13 remained prognostic for overall survival in multivariate analysis correcting for age, tumor type, stage, and systemic treatment. Conclusions: A VES-13 score of ≥7 is a valuable discriminating tool for predicting functional decline or death and can be used as a frailtyscreening tool among older cancer patients in centers with limited resources to conduct a comprehensive geriatric assessment.Laura Biganzoli, Anna Rachelle Mislang, Samantha Di Donato, Dimitri Becheri, Chiara Biagioni, Stefania Vitale, Giuseppina Sanna, Elena Zafarana, Stefano Gabellini, Francesca Del Monte, Elena Mori, Daniele Pozzessere, Antonella Brunello, Andrea Luciani, Letizia Laera, Luca Boni, Angelo Di Leo, and Giuseppe Mottin

The SIOG COVID-19 working group recommendations on the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines among older adults with cancer

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to negatively impact our society. Older adults are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. People who are frail, living in residential care facility, and/or with comorbidities, including cancer are disproportionately disadvantaged. To reduce the risk of infection among older adults with cancer, several anticancer therapies have been prioritized, delayed, de-escalated, or omitted based on clinical need ([1]). However, public health interventions remain critical to mitigate transmission and minimize adverse outcomes. Of these, mass immunization is perhaps a more effective preventive health measure and potentially a key exit strategy from this crisis