29
Too many assessments; too little time Lodovico Balducci M.D.

Too many assessments; too little time

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    7

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Too many assessments; too little time

Too many assessments; too little time

Lodovico Balducci M.D.

Page 2: Too many assessments; too little time

Définition de la ChimiothérapieDéfinition de la Chimiothérapie

• Les médicine administrent desLes médicine administrent des médicaments dont ils savent très peu, à des malades dont ils savent moins pourdes malades dont ils savent moins, pour guérir des maladies dont ils ne savent rien

François Marie Arouet

AKA V lt iAKA Voltaire

Page 3: Too many assessments; too little time

Définition de la ChimiothérapieDéfinition de la Chimiothérapie

• Les médicine administrent desLes médicine administrent des médicaments dont ils savent très peu, à des malades dont ils savent moins pourdes malades dont ils savent moins, pour guérir des maladies dont ils ne savent rien

François Marie Arouet

Page 4: Too many assessments; too little time

What do we know about older icancer patients

• Physiologic age and cancer treatmentPhysiologic age and cancer treatment• Frailty

Q lit f Lif• Quality of Life

Page 5: Too many assessments; too little time

Physiologic age and cancer treatment

• Mortality RiskMortality Risk• Risk of chemotherapy-related

complicationscomplications• Functional outcome

Page 6: Too many assessments; too little time

Expectative de vie

Facteurs de risque

Odd ratio Compte

AGE60 64 1 9 160-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485

1.92.83.75.48.316 2

12345785

Sexe Masculine16.2

27

2

DiabètesCancer

1.82 1

12Cancer

Maladies chroniques du poumonCHFBMI < 25Fumeur

2.12.3

2.31.72 1

22212

Fumeur 2.1

FonctionFaire sa toiletteGestion financièreM h i i lé

2.01.92 1

222

LEE ET AL, JAMA, 2006

Marcher au moine un isoléPousser ou traîner des objets lourdes

2.11.5

21

Page 7: Too many assessments; too little time

Mortalité a 4 années selon le compte total

8090

50607080

80

20304050 >80

70-7950-69

010

1 o2

3o4

5 6 8 9 >102 o4

LEE ET AL, JAMA, 2006

Page 8: Too many assessments; too little time

Heme ModelHeme Model

Item 0 points 1 point 2 pointsDBP ≤ 72 > 72

IADL 26–29 10–25

LDH* 0–459 > 459

Chemotox 0–0.44 0.45–0.57 > 0.57

*ULN 618*ULN = 618

DBP = diastolic blood pressure; LDH = lactate dehydrogenase; ULN = upper limit of normal.

Page 9: Too many assessments; too little time

Heme ModelHeme Model

Trend p < 0.001Cstat 0.65–0.77

Int. low Int. high HighLow

Page 10: Too many assessments; too little time

Non Heme ModelNon-Heme ModelItem 0 points 1 point 2 pointsItem 0 points 1 point 2 points

ECOG PS 0 1–2 3–4

MMS 30 < 30

MNA > 27.5 0–27.5

Chemotox 0–0.44 0.45–0.57 > 0.57

ECOG PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status;MMS = mini-mental status; MNA = mini-nutritional assessment.

Page 11: Too many assessments; too little time

Non Heme ModelNon-Heme Model

Trend p < 0.001Cstat 0.62–0.66

Low Int. low Int. high High

Page 12: Too many assessments; too little time

Predictive Model IIPredictive risk factors for grade 3–5 chemotherapy toxicity

in older adults with cancerRisk factors for grade 3–5 toxicity OR (95% CI) ScoreAge ≥ 73 years 1.8 (1.2–2.7) 2GI/GU 2 2 (1 4 3 3) 3

in older adults with cancer

GI/GU cancer 2.2 (1.4–3.3) 3Standard dose 2.1 (1.3–3.5) 3Poly–chemotherapy 1.8 (1.1–2.7) 2Haemoglobin (male: < 11, female: < 10) 2.2 (1.1–4.3) 3Creatinine Clearance (Jelliffe – ideal wt) < 34 2.5 (1.2–5.6) 31 or more falls in last 6 months 2.3 (1.3–3.9) 3Hearing impairment (fair or worse) 1.6 (1.0–2.6) 2Limited in walking 1 block (MOS) 1.8 (1.1–3.1) 2Assistance required in medication intake 1.4 (0.6–3.1) 1Decreased social activity (MOS) 1.3 (0.9–2.0) 1

Possible score range: 0–25Hurria et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28 Suppl 15s:[abstract 9001].

Data presented at ASCO 2010.GI = gastrointestinal; GU = genitourinary; MOS = months of study.

Page 13: Too many assessments; too little time

Model Performance:Prevalence of Toxicity by Score

“High” 83%( ≥ 12)

ROC: 0.72

Prevalence of Toxicity by Score)

100% “Mid” 53%(6–11)

( ≥ 12)

92%

iciti

es (%

60%

80%

“Low” 27%

( )

63%

76%

92%

e 3–

5 to

xi

40%

60% %(0–5)

45%

63%

Gra

de

0 4 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 ≥ 140%

20% 31%21%

Total scoreN = 39 N = 64 N = 123 N = 36N = 50N = 1610–4 5 6–8 9–11 12–13 ≥ 14

ROC = receiver operating characteristic.

Page 14: Too many assessments; too little time

Number of chemotherapy cycles in relation to GA

Test Baseline < 4 cycli (n=74)

≥ 4 cycli (n=118)

p-value

GFI < 4 57% 67% 0.15≥ 4 43% 33%

MNA 24-30 51% 75% 0 001MNA 24 30 51% 75% 0.001< 24 49% 25%

MMSE > 24 89% 97% 0.04≤ 24 11% 3%

IQ-CODE

< 3.3 80% 87% 0.20

≥ 3.3 20% 13%

Page 15: Too many assessments; too little time

Hazard ratio for mortalitycorrected for sex age purpose of chemotherapy type ofcorrected for sex, age, purpose of chemotherapy, type of

malignancy

Test Baseline HR (95% C I ) p valueTest Baseline HR (95% C.I.) p-valueGFI ≥ 4 2.00 (1.26-3.17) 0.004MNA < 24 2.54 (1.55-4.15) < 0.001MMSE ≤ 24 0.92 (0.44-1.93) 0.82IQ-CODE < 3.3 0.93(0.49-1.73) 0.81

Page 16: Too many assessments; too little time

A. Aaldriks et al. CROH 2011;79:205-212

Page 17: Too many assessments; too little time

Survival breast cancer (n = 63)Survival breast cancer (n 63)

Page 18: Too many assessments; too little time

L’exemple meilleur d’étude phase III chez le sujet âgéephase III chez le sujet âgée

N HR 95% LCL

95% UCL p

All (B:A) 451 0 639 0 515 0 792 0 000046All (B:A) 451 0.639 0.515 0.792 0.000046

PS 0/1 329 0.622 0.479 0.806 0.0003

PS 2 122 0.646 0.439 0.951 0.0268

Age ≤ 80 yr 337 0.668 0.519 0.859 0.0016

Age > 80 yr 114 0 559 0 368 0 851 0 0067Age > 80 yr 114 0.559 0.368 0.851 0.0067

Adenocarcinoma 229 0.712 0.518 0.979 0.0365

Other histology 222 0.539 0.399 0.727 0.000053

Smokers 356 0.631 0.498 0.800 0.0001

N k 94 0 625 0 368 1 060 0 0810Never smokers 94 0.625 0.368 1.060 0.0810

Weight loss < 5 % 198 0.610 0.431 0.864 0.0053

Weight loss ≥ 5 % 246 0.732 0.553 0.968 0.0287

ADL = 6 351 0.593 0.462 0.761 0.000042

ADL 6 87 0 655 0 417 1 029 0 0665ADL < 6 87 0.655 0.417 1.029 0.0665

MMS ≥ 24 372 0.601 0.473 0.764 0.000032

MMS < 24 70 0.909 0.540 1.530 0.7188

Favorsdoublet

Favorssingle

OS – The univariate hazard ratio was derived from a Cox model with a single treatment covariate

doublet single

Page 19: Too many assessments; too little time

treatment has an independent effect on survival,

even after adjustment for patient characteristics

Page 20: Too many assessments; too little time

Other issues related to physiologic age

• Does cancer treatment accelerate age?Does cancer treatment accelerate age?• Caregiver• Relationship with laboratory studies• Relationship with laboratory studies

(circulating cytokines, telomere length, allostatic index)allostatic index)

• Which abbreviated CGA if any• Management of the deconditioned and frail• Management of the deconditioned and frail

patient• Cancer independent life-expectancy• Cancer independent life-expectancy

Page 21: Too many assessments; too little time

ConclusionsConclusions

• GFI and VES 13 have low negativeGFI and VES 13 have low negative predictive values: 40% and 48%

• aCGA has high negative predictive values• aCGA has high negative predictive values for GDS, cognition, ADL and IADLGFI d VES 13 t f l• GFI and VES 13 are not very useful as a screening tool in a group of cancer

ti t ld th 70 ith hi hpatients older than 70 years with a high risk of vulnerability

Page 22: Too many assessments; too little time

FRAILTY - DEFINITIONSFriedA state of age-related physiologic vulnerability resulting from impaired homeostatic reserveand a reduced capacity of the organism towithstand stress.

RockwoodA precarious balance easily perturbed.

ClippA breeze could tip him over.

FDOCFrailty may be a syndrome……..

Page 23: Too many assessments; too little time

Questions about frailtyQuestions about frailty

• Frailty and vulnerabiltyFrailty and vulnerabilty• Frailty and Somatopause

F ilt l d k• Frailty as a landmark

Page 24: Too many assessments; too little time

Is this classification still workable in l ?oncology?

• FitFit• Vulnerable

F il• Frail• Moribund

Page 25: Too many assessments; too little time

Frailty and OncologyFrailty and Oncology

• Frailty cancer incidence and prevalenceFrailty cancer incidence and prevalence• Frailty as consequence of cancer

F ilt f• Frailty as a consequence of cancer treatment

Page 26: Too many assessments; too little time

Quality of lifeyHe puts his stamina down to ginger curry, tea and “being happy”.“The secret to a long and healthy life isThe secret to a long and healthy life is to be stress-free. Be grateful for everything you have, stay away from people who are negative, stay smiling and keep running ”and keep running.

Page 27: Too many assessments; too little time

Aging and QOLAging and QOL

• Quality of life or quality of health?Quality of life or quality of health?• Is quality of health = active life

expectancy?expectancy?

Page 28: Too many assessments; too little time
Page 29: Too many assessments; too little time