Understanding Caregiver Quality of Life in Caregivers of Hospitalized Older Adults With Cancer.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Caregivers of older adults with cancer assist both with cancer care and other health issues, which may make them vulnerable to consequences of caregiving. Hospitalization may represent a time when a caregiver's ability to provide care at home is exceeded. We sought to characterize caregivers of hospitalized older adults with cancer, determine their quality of life (QOL), and identify factors associated with caregiver QOL. METHODS: Patients (n = 100), aged 65 years and older, with an unplanned hospitalization and their caregivers were included. Caregivers completed a questionnaire about their health, social support, caregiving relationship, QOL (Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer [CQOLC] tool), and patient function. Patient medical history was obtained via chart review. The association between patient, caregiving, and caregiver factors and CQOLC was determined using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: Most patients (73%) had metastatic/advanced disease, and 71% received treatment for their cancer within 30 days of hospitalization. Median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) was 60%, and 89% required help with instrumental activities of daily living, as reported by caregivers. Median caregiver age was 65 years (range = 29-84 years). The majority (60%) had no major comorbidities and rated their health as excellent/good (79%), though 22% reported worsening health due to caregiving. Caregivers had a median Mental Health Inventory-18 score of 70 (range = 0-97), a median Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-social activity score of 56 (range = 0-87.5), and a median MOS-Social Support Survey score of 68 (range = 0-100). Caregivers provided a median of 35 hours of care per week (range = 0-168 hours of care per week). Mean CQOLC was 84.6 ± 23.5. Lower caregiver QOL was associated with poorer caregiver mental health, less social support, and poorer patient KPS (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Caregivers of hospitalized older adults with cancer are older but generally in good health. Those with poorer mental health, less social support, and caring for patients with poorer performance status are more likely to experience lower QOL. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:978-986, 2019.

Correction: Inhibition of IRE1α-driven pro-survival pathways is a promising therapeutic application in acute myeloid leukemia.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7702.].

Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of a Computer-Based Geriatric Assessment for Older Adults With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computer-based geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture ( SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. RESULTS: The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil ( P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was "just right," and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test-retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥ 0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.

Validation of a Prediction Tool for Chemotherapy Toxicity in Older Adults With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Older adults are at increased risk for chemotherapy toxicity, and standard oncology assessment measures cannot identify those at risk. A predictive model for chemotherapy toxicity was developed (N = 500) that consisted of geriatric assessment questions and other clinical variables. This study aims to externally validate this model in an independent cohort (N = 250). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age ≥ 65 years with a solid tumor, fluent in English, and who were scheduled to receive a new chemotherapy regimen were recruited from eight institutions. Risk of chemotherapy toxicity was calculated (low, medium, or high risk) on the basis of the prediction model before the start of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-related toxicity was captured (grade 3 [hospitalization indicated], grade 4 [life threatening], and grade 5 [treatment-related death]). Validation of the prediction model was performed by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: The study sample (N = 250) had a mean age of 73 years (range, 65 to 94 [standard deviation, 5.8]). More than one half of patients (58%) experienced grade ≥ 3 toxicity. Risk of toxicity increased with increasing risk score (36.7% low, 62.4% medium, 70.2% high risk; P < .001). The area under the curve of the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.71), which was not statistically different from the development cohort (0.72; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.77; P = .09). There was no association between Karnofsky Performance Status and chemotherapy toxicity (P = .25). CONCLUSION: This study externally validated a chemotherapy toxicity predictive model for older adults with cancer. This predictive model should be considered when discussing the risks and benefits of chemotherapy with older adults.

Inhibition of IRE1α-driven pro-survival pathways is a promising therapeutic application in acute myeloid leukemia.

Survival of cancer cells relies on the unfolded protein response (UPR) to resist stress triggered by the accumulation of misfolded proteins within the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). The IRE1α-XBP1 pathway, a key branch of the UPR, is activated in many cancers. Here, we show that the expression of both mature and spliced forms of XBP1 (XBP1s) is up-regulated in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cell lines and AML patient samples. IRE1α RNase inhibitors [MKC-3946, 2-hydroxy-1-naphthaldehyde (HNA), STF-083010 and toyocamycin] blocked XBP1 mRNA splicing and exhibited cytotoxicity against AML cells. IRE1α inhibition induced caspase-dependent apoptosis and G1 cell cycle arrest at least partially by regulation of Bcl-2 family proteins, G1 phase controlling proteins (p21cip1, p27kip1 and cyclin D1), as well as chaperone proteins. Xbp1 deleted murine bone marrow cells were resistant to growth inhibition by IRE1α inhibitors. Combination of HNA with either bortezomib or AS2O3 was synergistic in AML cytotoxicity associated with induction of p-JNK and reduction of p-PI3K and p-MAPK. Inhibition of IRE1α RNase activity increased expression of many miRs in AML cells including miR-34a. Inhibition of miR-34a conferred cellular resistance to HNA. Our results strongly suggest that targeting IRE1α driven pro-survival pathways represent an exciting therapeutic approach for the treatment of AML.

Impact of RAS and BRAF mutations on carcinoembryonic antigen production and pattern of colorectal metastases.

AIM: To investigate the impact of RAS and BRAF mutations on the pattern of metastatic disease and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) production. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we investigated the impact of RAS and BRAF mutational status on pattern of metastatic disease and CEA production. Only patients presenting with a newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) were included. Patients' characteristics, primary tumor location, site of metastatic disease and CEA at presentation were compared between those with and without RAS and BRAF mutations. RESULTS: Among 174 patients, mutations in KRAS, NRAS and BRAF were detected in 47%, 3% and 6% respectively. RAS mutations (KRAS and NRAS) were more likely to be found in African American patients (87% vs 13%; P value = 0.0158). RAS mutations were associated with a higher likelihood of a normal CEA (< 5 ng/mL) at presentation. BRAF mutations were more likely to occur in females. We were not able to confirm any association between mutational status and site of metastatic disease at initial diagnosis. CONCLUSION: No association was found between RAS and BRAF mutations and sites of metastatic disease at the time of initial diagnosis in our cohort. Patients with RAS mutations were more likely to present with CEA levels < 5 ng/mL. These findings may have clinical implications on surveillance strategies for RAS mutant patients with earlier stages of CRC.

Predictors of chemotherapy dose reduction at first cycle in patients age 65 years and older with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Age-based reduction of chemotherapy dose with the first cycle (primary dose reduction, PDR) is not routinely guideline recommended. Few studies, however, have evaluated how frequently PDR is utilized in the treatment of older patients with cancer and which factors may be associated with this decision. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multi-institutional prospective cohort study of patients age ≥65 years treated with chemotherapy. The dose and regimen were at the discretion of the treating oncologist. The prevalence of PDR and its association with treatment intent (palliative vs. curative), tumor type, patient characteristics (sociodemographics and geriatric assessment variables), and chemotherapy-associated toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 500 patients (mean age 73, range 65-91 years), 179 patients received curative intent chemotherapy and 321 patients received palliative intent chemotherapy, with PDR being more common in the latter sub-group (15% vs. 25%, p = 0.005). Increasing age was independently associated with PDR in both sub-groups. Comorbidity (prior cancer or liver/kidney disease) was independently associated with PDR in the palliative sub-group alone while Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) was not associated with PDR in either subgroup. There was no significant difference in the rates of grades 3-5 toxicity, dose reductions, or delays with PDR. Patients in the palliative sub-group treated with PDR had higher rates of hospitalization compared to those treated with standard doses. CONCLUSION: PDR is more common in the palliative setting, but is also utilized among patients treated with curative intent. Factors associated with PDR include age and comorbid conditions, but not KPS.