Health status, emergency department visits, and oncologists' feedback: An analysis of secondary endpoints from a randomized phase II geriatric assessment trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric Assessment (GA) can help uncover previously unknown health issues and recommend tailored interventions to optimize outcomes; however, no completed randomized trial has examined the impact of GA on utility-based health status, healthcare use, and oncologists' opinions about GA. We examined these secondary outcomes of a randomized phase II trial. METHODS: A planned analysis of secondary outcomes of a two-group parallel single-blind randomized phase II trial of GA (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02222259) recruited patients ≥ age 70, diagnosed with stage II-IV breast/gastrointestinal/genitourinary cancer within six weeks of beginning chemotherapy at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Descriptive analyses using intent-to-treat were conducted for health status (EuroQol EQ-5D-3L) and healthcare utilization (patient self-report). Oncologist opinions were captured via open-ended interviews and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients who met the inclusion criteria were approached; 61 of them consented (64%). For health status, at all time-points, there were no significant differences between the two groups. The number of emergency department and family physician visits was low overall; there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at any time point. All interviewed oncologists (eight of fourteen invited) were satisfied with the intervention, but wanted more straightforward recommendations and earlier GA results. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in terms of relationships between GA and utility-based health status or GA and healthcare use. Underreporting of healthcare use was possible. Oncologists welcome GA feedback and prefer to receive it in pre-treatment decision context. Larger trials with earlier GA are warranted.

A randomized phase II trial of geriatric assessment and management for older cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) can identify current health issues and recommend interventions to optimize well-being of older adults, but no randomized trial has yet been completed in oncology. Therefore, a randomized phase 2 trial was conducted. METHODS: A two-group parallel single-blinded randomized phase II trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02222259) enrolled patients aged ≥70 years, diagnosed with stage 2-4 gastrointestinal, genitourinary, or breast cancer within 6 weeks of commencing chemotherapy at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The coprimary feasibility outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients enrolled and retained. The coprimary clinical outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (EORTC QLQ C30) and modification of cancer treatment. Descriptive and regression analyses using intent-to-treat analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-one persons (64%) agreed to participate (31 allocated to intervention arm and 30 to control group). In the control group, more participants died and refused follow-up. The benefit of intervention over control on QOL at 3 months was greater for those who survived 6 months (difference 9.28; 95% CI -10.35 to 28.91) versus those who survived only 3 months (difference 6.55; 95% CI -9.63 to 22.73). CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed that it was feasible to recruit and retain older adults for a GAM study. Those who survived at least 6 months seemed to receive a greater QOL benefit than those who died or withdrew.

Chemotherapy treatment decision-making experiences of older adults with cancer, their family members, oncologists and family physicians: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Although comorbidities, frailty, and functional impairment are common in older adults (OA) with cancer, little is known about how these factors are considered during the treatment decision-making process by OAs, their families, and health care providers. Our aim was to better understand the treatment decision process from all these perspectives. METHODS: A mixed methods multi-perspective longitudinal study using semi-structured interviews and surveys with 29 OAs aged ≥70 years with advanced prostate, breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, 24 of their family members,13 oncologists, and 15 family physicians was conducted. The sample was stratified on age (70-79 and 80+). All interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference in the treatment decision-making experience based on age. Most OAs felt that they should have the final say in the treatment decision, but strongly valued their oncologists' opinion. "Trust in my oncologist" and "chemotherapy as the last resort to prolong life" were the most important reasons to accept treatment. Families indicated a need to improve communication between them, the patient and the specialist, particularly around goals of treatment. Comorbidity and potential side-effects did not play a major role in the treatment decision-making for patients, families, or oncologists. Family physicians reported no involvement in decisions but desired to be more involved. CONCLUSION: This first study using multiple perspectives showed neither frailty nor comorbidity played a role in the treatment decision-making process. Efforts to improve communication were identified as an opportunity that may enhance quality of care. In a mixed methods study multiple perspective study with older adults with cancer, their family members, their oncologist and their family physician we explored the treatment decision making process and found that most older adults were satisfied with their decision. Comorbidity, functional status and frailty did not impact the older adult's or their family members' decision.

Weekly epoetin alfa maintains hemoglobin, improves quality of life, and reduces transfusion in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Epoetin alfa administered at 40,000 U once weekly (qw) to anemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy increases hemoglobin levels, improves quality of life (QOL), and reduces transfusions. The benefit of epoetin alfa in maintaining hemoglobin levels in cancer patients with hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL has not been evaluated. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (N = 354) receiving chemotherapy were randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to epoetin alfa (40,000 U qw) or standard of care (SOC). QOL was assessed at baseline and week 12. Hemoglobin responses, transfusion requirements, and prognostic factors for responses were measured. RESULTS: At week 12, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An; mean, 2.16 +/- 12.84 for epoetin alfa v -4.43 +/- 13.42 for SOC) and FACT-An fatigue (mean, 1.85 +/- 10.52 for epoetin alfa v -3.55 +/- 11.14 for SOC) change scores were significantly higher in the epoetin alfa group (P < .0001). Hemoglobin responses defined as mean hemoglobin > or = 12 g/dL or a > or = 2 g/dL increase compared with baseline were significantly higher in the epoetin alfa group versus SOC: 52.0% v 5.1% and 65.7% v 6.3%, respectively (P < .0001 for both comparisons). Percentage transfused was significantly lower in the epoetin alfa group compared with SOC (8.6% v 22.9%). More than 90% of patients did not require a dose increase and 28.7% had a dose reduction. CONCLUSION: Epoetin alfa administered at 40,000 U qw is effective in improving QOL, maintaining hemoglobin level, and reducing transfusion requirements in breast cancer patients. The high effectiveness observed could be attributed in part to early treatment with epoetin alfa.

Weekly administration of epoetin alfa improves cognition and quality of life in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy experience not only fatigue and menopausal symptoms but also documented cognitive dysfunction and reduced capacity to carry out activities of daily living. The role of epoetin alfa in improving cognition and functional capacity was assessed in a large randomized trial through patient self-reported outcomes. Patients with breast cancer (N = 354, adjuvant and metastatic) undergoing chemotherapy were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive epoetin alfa (40,000 IU once weekly) or the standard of care (SOC). Change in patient-reported Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) from baseline to week 12 was compared between the epoetin alfa and SOC groups. In addition, correlations between the disease-nonspecific HUI3 utility scale and the cancer-specific quality of life instrument Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) and Fatigue subscales were assessed. Epoetin alfa treatment significantly improved HUI3 scores compared with patients receiving SOC (P = 0.036). Three subscales within HUI3 were also significantly better for epoetin alfa-treated patients (emotion, P = 0.048; ambulation, P = 0.048; and cognition, P = 0.02). Moreover, a strong correlation (P = 0.0001) exists between the disease-nonspecific utility scale HUI3 and the disease-specific FACT-An and FACT-Fatigue scales in terms of overall scores and score changes. The findings of the study demonstrate for the first time in patients with breast cancer that epoetin alfa significantly enhances functional well-being, which translates into significantly better utility scores. In addition, epoetin alfa also significantly improved cognitive function of women undergoing chemotherapy, and this could have an important impact on their lives from a societal perspective.