Impact of Lung Cancer Treatment on Cognitive Functioning.

The impact of oncologic treatment for (non)-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC and SCLC, respectively) on cognition is relevant when deciding which treatment is the most preferable option, especially when curation is not possible. A systematic search of Medline and EMBASE for studies on the effect of treatment on cognition in patients with lung cancer was performed. A total of 39 longitudinal articles were included. Study populations were heterogeneous with regards to stage and treatment type. In the 7 studies concerning SCLC, the median age of patients was between 59 and 68 years. Eighty-six percent of these studies had a loss to follow-up > 10%. Six studies used objective tests to assess cognition. Objective measurements showed a negative effect on attention, memory, and fluency after treatment. Thirty-three studies concerning NSCLC were included. The mean age of patients was between 53 and 77 years. Seventy percent of these studies included patients with stage III and IV NSCLC. Over one-half of the studies had a high rate of loss to follow-up. Eighty-eight percent used objective scales to assess cognitive functioning. Subjective decline of cognitive functioning up to 11.1% was experienced, with recovery at 4 to 6 months. Objective measurement of attention showed improvement over the course of chemotherapy. In SCLC, there is a significant negative effect on attention, memory, and fluency. In NSCLC, the longer term impact of treatment on both subjective and objective cognitive functioning appears limited. Thus, there is no evidence directing treatment choice for NSCLC based on longer term cognitive deficits. Further research is needed to precisely assess the impact of lung cancer treatment on cognition.

Patterns of treatment and survival among older patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patterns of treatment and survival are largely unknown for older patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in daily clinical practice. METHODS: All patients ≥65 years with stage III NSCLC (2009-2013) were included from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Descriptive and multivariable treatment and survival analyses were stratified for patients aged 65-74 years and ≥75 years. RESULTS: Compared to older patients (n = 3163), those aged 65-74 years (n = 3876) underwent more often surgery (21% vs 12% for stage IIIA), chemoradiotherapy (47% vs 22% for both stage IIIA and IIIB), and chemotherapy (23% vs 12% for stage IIIB), and received less radiotherapy (8% vs 22% for both stage IIIA and IIIB). One-year survival was significantly higher among patients aged 65-74 compared to those aged ≥75 (61% vs 43%, for stage IIIA and 45% vs 30% for stage IIIB; P < .01). However, stratification of treatment showed similar survival rates between age groups. Among patients aged 65-74 years, the multivariably adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of death was twice as high for patients receiving radiotherapy (HR 1.9 (95%CI 1.6-2.2) for stage IIIA and HR 2.5 (95%CI 2.1-3.0) for stage IIIB) and chemotherapy (HR 2.2 (95%CI 1.9-2.5) and HR 2.2 (95%CI 1.8-2.7), respectively) compared to chemoradiotherapy, and were slightly lower for patients aged ≥75 years receiving radiotherapy (HR 1.6 (95%CI 1.4-1.9) and HR 1.8 (95%CI 1.5-2.1), respectively) and chemotherapy (HR 2.2 (95%CI 1.8-2.7) and HR 1.8 (95%CI 1.5-2.2), respectively). Comorbidity was not significantly associated with poorer survival (p = .07). CONCLUSION: Chemoradiotherapy was more often applied among patients aged 65-74 years compared to those aged ≥75. While survival was worse for patients aged ≥75 years, differences between age groups largely disappeared after stratification for treatment. Future research should focus on predictive patient characteristics to distinguish patients within the heterogeneous older population who can benefit from curative-intent treatment.

Lung Cancer in the Oldest Old: A Nation-Wide Study in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: An important step in improving research and care for the oldest patients with lung cancer is analyzing current data regarding diagnostic work-up, treatment choices, and survival. METHODS: We analyzed data on lung cancer from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR-IKNL) regarding diagnostic work-up, treatment, and survival in different age categories; the oldest old (≥85 years of age) versus those aged 71-84 (elderly) and those aged ≤70 years (younger patients). RESULTS: 47,951 patients were included in the 2010-2014 NCR database. 2196 (5%) patients were aged ≥85 years. Histological diagnosis was obtained significantly less often in the oldest old (38%, p < 0.001), and less standard treatment regimen was given (8%, p < 0.001) compared to elderly and younger patients. 67% of the oldest old received best supportive care only versus 38% of the elderly and 20% of the younger patients (p < 0.001). For the oldest old receiving standard treatment, survival rates were similar in comparison with the elderly patients. In the oldest old, no survival differences were found when comparing standard or adjusted regimens for stage I and IV NSCLC; for stage III, oldest old receiving standard treatment had longer survival. No oldest old patients with stage II received standard treatment. CONCLUSION: Clinicians make limited use of diagnostics and invasive treatment in the oldest old; however, selected oldest old patients experienced similar survival rates as the elderly when receiving some form of anticancer therapy (standard or adjusted). More research is needed to further develop individualized treatment algorithms.

Prognostic Value of Geriatric 8 and Identification of Seniors at Risk for Hospitalized Patients Screening Tools for Patients With Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Because of the time-consuming aspect of geriatric assessments, cancer specialists are seeking shorter screening tools to distinguish fit and frail patients. We analyzed the predictive value of the Geriatric 8 (G8) and Identification of Seniors at Risk for Hospitalized Patients (ISAR-HP) in elderly patients with lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2014 to April 2016, the data from patients with lung cancer aged > 70 years at 2 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands were included in a database. The patients were classified as potentially frail if they had a G8 of ≤ 14 or ISAR-HP of ≥ 2. RESULTS: Of the 142 included patients (median age, 77 years; interquartile range, 73-82 years), 108 (76%) were potentially frail. After correction for possible confounders, the potentially frail patients had a significantly greater risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 4.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-9.99; P = .02). Higher disease stage (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.40-2.12; P < .001) was also a significant predictor of mortality; however, initial treatment (standard or otherwise) and age were not. When using both screening instruments separately, an impaired score on the G8 and higher disease stage were the variables remaining in the regression analyses (HR for impaired G8, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.35-6.72; P < .001). Patients with impaired scores on the ISAR-HP and G8 had more geriatric impairments than did patients with only an impaired G8 score. CONCLUSION: G8 screening is useful for the prognostication of elderly patients with lung cancer and could be used in combination with ISAR-HP to increase specificity at the cost of sensitivity. Using the ISAR-HP as the only screening tool would be insufficient.

The Effect of A Geriatric Assessment on Treatment Decisions for Patients with Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making for older patients with lung cancer can be complex and challenging. A geriatric assessment (GA) may be helpful and is increasingly being used since 2005 when SIOG advised to incorporate this in standard work-up for the elderly with cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the value of a geriatric assessment in decision-making for patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Between January 2014 and April 2016, data on patients with lung cancer from two teaching hospitals in the Netherlands were entered in a prospective database. Outcome of geriatric assessment, non-oncologic interventions, and suggested adaptations of oncologic treatment proposals were evaluated. RESULTS: 83 patients (median age 79 years) were analyzed with a geriatric assessment, of which 59% were treated with a curative intent. Half of the patients were classified as ECOG PS 0 or 1. The majority of the patients (78%) suffered from geriatric impairments and 43% (n = 35) of the patients suffered from three or more geriatric impairments (out of eight analyzed domains). Nutritional status was most frequently impaired (52%). Previously undiagnosed impairments were identified in 58% of the patients, and non-oncologic interventions were advised for 43%. For 33% of patients, adaptations of the oncologic treatment were proposed. Patients with higher number of geriatric impairments more often were advised a reduced or less intensive treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A geriatric assessment uncovers previously unknown health impairments and provides important guidance for tailored treatment decisions in patients with lung cancer. More research on GA-stratified treatment decisions is needed.

Selection of Patients in Ongoing Clinical Trials on Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is predominantly a disease of the elderly: half of all newly diagnosed patients are over 70 years old. Older patients and those with comorbidities are underrepresented in clinical trials; scientific communities have addressed this issue since the end of the 20th century. We set out to determine the characteristics of the selection of patients in lung cancer trials that are currently recruiting. METHODS: We searched The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinical trial registry ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ) on April 23, 2015 for currently recruiting phase I, II, or III clinical trials in lung cancer. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website. RESULTS: Of the 419 trails selected in this overview, 88 % explicitly or implicitly excluded elderly patients. Patients were excluded based on stringent organ selection in 76 % of the trials, based on performance status (57 %) and based on age (13 %). The median number of placed restrictions per trial was seven. In the 2 % of the trials that were exclusively designed for elderly patients only fit patients were included. CONCLUSION: In this overview of current lung cancer trials registered in the NIH clinical trial registry, we found that elderly patients and those with comorbidities are often excluded from participation in clinical trials. Therefore, it is difficult for physicians and their frail patients to properly evaluate the efficacy and safety of current treatment options. More research that includes the elderly and those with comorbidities is urgently needed.

Patient-Centered Outcome Measures in Lung Cancer Trials.

BACKGROUND: Scientific communities focusing on cancer research have urged for the development of trials that address patient-centered outcome measures instead of solely focusing on cancer as a disease-centered process. This is important for a patient with lung cancer because of the rapid course of disease and generally poor prognosis. We set out to determine the characteristics and study objectives of the current clinical trials in pulmonary malignancies. METHODS: The United States National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry was searched on April 23rd 2015, for currently recruiting phase I, II, or III clinical trials in lung cancer. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website. RESULTS: Of the 419 clinical trials included in this review, patient-centered outcome measures are investigated in a minority of the trials. Outcome measures as quality of life, functional capacity, and health care utilization are included in a small number of trials (20, 4, and 2 % respectively). Treatment completion is included in 1 % of the trials. Research goals are most frequently toxicity (78 %) and progression-free survival (76 %). CONCLUSION: Patient-centered outcome measures are included in a minority of the currently recruiting clinical trials in pulmonary malignancies. If we do not investigate these outcome measures, it is not possible to increase our knowledge of the optimal treatment, as this should aim to optimize the patient's wellbeing as well as the course of disease. One option could be to incorporate combinations of patient- and disease-centered endpoints, for instance by using overall treatment utility or quality-adjusted outcome measures.

Relevance of a Geriatric Assessment for Elderly Patients With Lung Cancer-A Systematic Review.

Lung cancer is predominantly a disease of the elderly: one half of all newly diagnosed patients will be > 70 years old. In the Netherlands, > 12,000 new cases are diagnosed annually. We sought to assemble all available evidence on the relevance of a geriatric assessment for lung cancer patients. A systematic Medline and Embase search was performed for studies in which a geriatric assessment was used to detect health issues or that had addressed the association between a baseline geriatric assessment (composed of ≥ 2 of the following domains: cognitive function, mood/depression, nutritional status, activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, polypharmacy, objectively measured physical capacity, social support and frailty) and outcome. A total of 23 publications from 18 studies were included. The median age of patients was 76 years (range, 73-81 years). Despite generally good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the prevalence of geriatric impairments was high, with the median ranging from 29% for cognitive impairment to 70% for instrumental activities of daily living impairment. Objective physical capacity and nutritional status, as items of the geriatric assessment, had a consistent association with mortality. The information revealed by a geriatric assessment led to changes in oncologic treatment and nononcologic interventions. The present review has demonstrated that a geriatric assessment can detect multiple health issues not reflected in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Impairments in geriatric domains have predictive value for mortality and appear to be associated with treatment completion. It would be useful to develop and validate an individualized treatment algorithm that includes these geriatric domains.

Dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome not related to G6PD deficiency.

Dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome (DHS) is a rare, but potentially life-threatening reaction to dapsone. We describe a 55-year-old Caucasian woman with normal glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase levels presenting with an extensive skin eruption, high-grade fever, pneumonitis and hepatitis, which occurred within 3 weeks after initiation of dapsone. In addition to supportive care, the patient was successfully treated with high-dose corticosteroids and antibiotics. The combination of high-grade fever, skin rash, lung and liver involvement made a dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome very likely.

Clinical similarities among bradykinin-mediated and mast cell-mediated subtypes of non-hereditary angioedema: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Non-hereditary angioedema (non-HAE) is characterized by local swelling due to self-limiting, subcutaneous or submucosal extravasation of fluid, and can be divided into three subtypes. These subtypes are believed to have different pathophysiological backgrounds and are referred to in recent guidelines as bradykinin-mediated (e.g. caused by angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitors), mast cell-mediated (e.g. angioedema with wheals) or idiopathic (cause unknown). Bradykinin-mediated subtypes are more closely related to hereditary angioedema than the other forms. Because clinical features of these non-HAE subtypes have not been studied in detail, we have looked at the clinical characteristics of symptoms and potential differences in clinical presentation of bradykinin-mediated and mast cell-mediated angioedema (AE) subtypes. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to patients presenting with AE at our tertiary outpatient clinic to document clinical characteristics, potential triggers and location of AE. The severity of AE attacks was analysed using visual analogue scales (VAS). RESULTS: The questionnaire was returned by 106 patients, of which 104 were included in the analysis. AE with wheals, idiopathic AE, and drug-associated AE occurred in 64 (62%), 25 (24%) and 15 patients (14%) respectively. Most patients (62%) reported prodromal symptoms while 63% reported multiple locations for an attack. Face and oropharynx were the main locations of AE attacks of any subtype while swelling was the symptom most frequently reported as severe. Overall severity of the last attack was indicated as severe by 68% of the patients. There were no differences between the subgroups. CONCLUSION: This similarity in clinical presentation raises the possibility that ACEi-induced, mast cell-mediated and idiopathic AE share common pathways.