Life expectancy in older adults with advanced cancer: Evaluation of a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model

Objectives: Oncologists estimate patients' prognosis to guide care. Evidence suggests oncologists tend to overestimate life expectancy, which can lead to care with questionable benefits. Information obtained from geriatric assessment may improve prognostication for older adults. In this study, we created a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model for older adults with advanced cancer and compared its performance to alternative models. Materials and methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile) capturing geriatric assessment and vital status up to one year for adults age ≥ 70 years with advanced cancer. Oncologists estimated life expectancy as 0–6 months, 7–12 months, and > 1 year. Three statistical models were developed: (1) a model including age, sex, cancer type, and stage (basic model), (2) basic model + Karnofsky Performance Status (≤50, 60–70, and 80+) (KPS model), and (3) basic model +16 binary indicators of geriatric assessment impairments (GA model). Cox regression was used to model one-year survival; c-indices and time-dependent c-statistics assessed model discrimination and stratified survival curves assessed model calibration. Results: We included 484 participants; mean age was 75; 48% had gastrointestinal or lung cancer. Overall, 43% of patients died within one year. Oncologists classified prognosis accurately for 55% of patients, overestimated for 35%, and underestimated for 10%. C-indices were 0.61 (basic model), 0.62 (KPS model), and 0.63 (GA model). The GA model was well-calibrated. Conclusions: The GA model showed moderate discrimination for survival, similar to alternative models, but calibration was improved. Further research is needed to optimize geriatric assessment-based prognostic models for use in older adults with advanced cancer

A randomized controlled phase III study of VB-111 combined with bevacizumab vs bevacizumab monotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GLOBE).

BackgroundOfranergene obadenovec (VB-111) is an anticancer viral therapy that demonstrated in a phase II study a survival benefit for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) who were primed with VB-111 monotherapy that was continued after progression with concomitant bevacizumab.MethodsThis pivotal phase III randomized, controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of upfront combination of VB-111 and bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive VB-111 1013 viral particles every 8 weeks in combination with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (combination arm) or bevacizumab monotherapy (control arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsEnrolled were 256 patients at 57 sites. Median exposure to VB-111 was 4 months. The study did not meet its primary or secondary goals. Median OS was 6.8 versus 7.9 months in the combination versus control arm (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI: 0.91-1.59; P = 0.19) and ORR was 27.3% versus 21.9% (P = 0.26). A higher rate of grades 3-5 adverse events was reported in the combination arm (67% vs 40%), mainly attributed to a higher rate of CNS and flu-like/fever events. Trends for improved survival with combination treatment were seen in the subgroup of patients with smaller tumors and in patients who had a posttreatment febrile reaction.ConclusionsIn this study, upfront concomitant administration of VB-111 and bevacizumab failed to improve outcomes in rGBM. Change of treatment regimen, with the lack of VB-111 monotherapy priming, may explain the differences from the favorable phase II results.Clinical trials registrationNCT02511405

Measures of frailty in population-based studies: An overview

Although research productivity in the field of frailty has risen exponentially in recent years, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the measurement of this syndrome. This overview offers three services: first, we provide a comprehensive catalogue of current frailty measures; second, we evaluate their reliability and validity; third, we report on their popularity of use