Optimizing the geriatrician's contribution to cancer care for older patients

Cancer specialists and geriatricians can struggle to find the best form for their collaboration within geriatric oncology and do not always benefit optimally from the experience and knowledge the other has to offer. To optimize the yield of a geriatric consultation for older patients with cancer, the geriatrician needs to know the specific purpose of the consultation, the expected disease trajectory, and some information on the potential benefits and risks of treatment options including best supportive care only. The geriatrician should subsequently focus primarily on the patient, their preferences and priorities with regards to oncologic and non-oncologic outcomes and assess their overall health status through a geriatric assessment that includes at minimum comorbidities, medication review, basic and instrument activities of daily living, mobility, falls, nutritional status, cognition, mood and social support. Reporting back to the cancer specialist should be concise, objective whenever possible and to the point. Within the multidisciplinary team, the geriatrician can contribute with information on health status and reserves, remaining life-expectancy and toxicity risks, and by creating awareness of the limitations of evidence regarding the older population. This will help in reaching a well-tailored treatment decision that balances cancer-related and patient-centred outcome measures and fits within the patient's own preferences for treatment

Do age and comorbidity impair recovery during two years after treatment for endometrial cancer?

Background:  A better understanding of the impact of age and comorbidity on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) may improve treatment decision-making in patients with endometrial cancer. We investigated whether either age or comorbidity is more strongly associated with changes in HRQoL over time. Methods:  Endometrial cancer patients (n = 296) were invited to complete questionnaires after initial treatment and after 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up. Patients were divided into subgroups according to age (<60, 60-75 and ≥75 years) and according to comorbidity (0, 1, 2 or ≥3). HRQoL was measured with the five EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning scales. Linear mixed models were performed for the different subgroups to assess changes in HRQoL over time. HRQoL was also compared to longitudinal outcomes from an age- and gender-matched normative population. Results:  The first questionnaire was returned by 221 patients (75%) of whom six were excluded due to progressive disease. Changes in HRQoL were mainly associated with cumulative comorbidity burden and not with age. Patients with comorbidity reported deterioration of physical and role functioning between 12 and 24 months. Compared to the normative population, patients initially scored higher on physical and role functioning, but at 24 months outcomes were no longer different. Conclusion:  Cumulative comorbidity burden was more strongly associated with deterioration of HRQoL than patient's age. Therefore, patients with endometrial cancer and multiple comorbid conditions require careful follow-up of HRQoL after treatment

Development of a self-reported version of the G8 screening tool

Introduction: The G8 is a widely used frailty screening tool in patients with cancer that was designed to be completed by healthcare professionals. A patient-reported version would enable a broader application. Aim of this study was to develop a self-reported version of the G8 and to assess its agreement with the original G8. Materials and Methods: A self-reported version of the G8 was developed with the aid of communication specialists. Patients aged ≥ 70 years from two different study populations were included: 1. Patients with cancer and 2. Patients visiting the geriatric outpatient clinic. The original G8 was completed by an oncology nurse or clinical research assistant and patients completed the self-reported G8. Patients were blinded to results of the original G8. Kappas were calculated to measure the agreement between the self-reported and original G8 for both the individual items as well as for the cut-off for potential frailty (≤14). Results: 161 patients participated, of whom 104 had cancer (65%). Patients with cancer more frequently completed all items than geriatric patients (all items completed in 94% versus 72%, p < 0.001). The agreement for potential frailty was substantial for patients with cancer (Kappa 0.63) and poor for geriatric patients (Kappa 0.05). Conclusion: Completion of the self-reported G8 is feasible and agreement of its outcome with the original G8 outcome is sufficient for patients with cancer but not for geriatric patients. The self-reported G8 may therefore be a useful alternative to the original G8 in older patients with cancer

Development of a self-reported version of the G8 screening tool

Introduction: The G8 is a widely used frailty screening tool in patients with cancer that was designed to be completed by healthcare professionals. A patient-reported version would enable a broader application. Aim of this study was to develop a self-reported version of the G8 and to assess its agreement with the original G8. Materials and Methods: A self-reported version of the G8 was developed with the aid of communication specialists. Patients aged ≥ 70 years from two different study populations were included: 1. Patients with cancer and 2. Patients visiting the geriatric outpatient clinic. The original G8 was completed by an oncology nurse or clinical research assistant and patients completed the self-reported G8. Patients were blinded to results of the original G8. Kappas were calculated to measure the agreement between the self-reported and original G8 for both the individual items as well as for the cut-off for potential frailty (≤14). Results: 161 patients participated, of whom 104 had cancer (65%). Patients with cancer more frequently completed all items than geriatric patients (all items completed in 94% versus 72%, p < 0.001). The agreement for potential frailty was substantial for patients with cancer (Kappa 0.63) and poor for geriatric patients (Kappa 0.05). Conclusion: Completion of the self-reported G8 is feasible and agreement of its outcome with the original G8 outcome is sufficient for patients with cancer but not for geriatric patients. The self-reported G8 may therefore be a useful alternative to the original G8 in older patients with cancer

What Defines Quality of Life for Older Patients Diagnosed with Cancer? A Qualitative Study

The treatment of cancer can have a significant impact on quality of life in older patients and this needs to be taken into account in decision making. However, quality of life can consist of many different components with varying importance between individuals. We set out to assess how older patients with cancer define quality of life and the components that are most significant to them. This was a single-centre, qualitative interview study. Patients aged 70 years or older with cancer were asked to answer open-ended questions: What makes life worthwhile? What does quality of life mean to you? What could affect your quality of life? Subsequently, they were asked to choose the five most important determinants of quality of life from a predefined list: cognition, contact with family or with community, independence, staying in your own home, helping others, having enough energy, emotional well-being, life satisfaction, religion and leisure activities. Afterwards, answers to the open-ended questions were independently categorized by two authors. The proportion of patients mentioning each category in the open-ended questions were compared to the predefined questions. Overall, 63 patients (median age 76 years) were included. When asked, “What makes life worthwhile?”, patients identified social functioning (86%) most frequently. Moreover, to define quality of life, patients most frequently mentioned categories in the domains of physical functioning (70%) and physical health (48%). Maintaining cognition was mentioned in 17% of the open-ended questions and it was the most commonly chosen option from the list of determinants (72% of respondents). In conclusion, physical functioning, social functioning, physical health and cognition are important components in quality of life. When discussing treatment options, the impact of treatment on these aspects should be taken into consideration

Severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity due to novel and rare DPYD missense mutations, deletion and genomic amplification affecting DPD activity and mRNA splicing

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the initial and rate-limiting enzyme in the catabolism of 5-fluorouracil (5FU). Genetic variations in DPD have emerged as predictive risk factors for severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity. Here, we report novel and rare genetic variants underlying DPD deficiency in 9 cancer patients presenting with severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. All patients possessed a strongly reduced DPD activity, ranging from 9 to 53% of controls. Analysis of the DPD gene (DPYD) showed the presence of 21 variable sites including 4 novel and 4 very rare aberrations: 3 missense mutations, 2 splice-site mutations, 1 intronic mutation, a deletion of 21 nucleotides and a genomic amplification of exons 9-12. Two novel/rare variants (c.2843T > C, c.321 + I G > A) were present in multiple, unrelated patients. Functional analysis of recombinantly-expressed DPD mutants carrying the p.1948T and p.G284V mutation showed residual DPD activities of 30% and 0.5%, respectively. Analysis of a DPD homology model indicated that the p.I948T and p.G284V mutations may affect electron transfer and the binding of FAD, respectively. cDNA analysis showed that the c321 + 1G > A mutation in DPYD leads to skipping of exon 4 immediately upstream of the mutated splice-donor site in the process of DPD premRNA splicing. A lethal toxicity in two DPD patients suggests that fluoropyrimidines combined with other therapies such as radiotherapy might be particularly toxic for DPD deficient patients. Our study advocates a more comprehensive genotyping approach combined with phenotyping strategies for upfront screening for DPD deficiency to ensure the safe administration of fluoropyrimidines. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserve