Efrat Dotan and Louise C. Walter
Efrat Dotan, Ilene Browner, Arti Hurria, and Crystal Denlinger
Most patients with colon cancer are older than 65 years. Their treatment poses multiple challenges, because they may have age-related comorbidities, polypharmacy, and physical or physiologic changes associated with older age. These challenges include limited data on the ability to predict tolerance to anticancer therapy and the appropriate use of treatment modalities in the setting of comorbidity and concurrent frailty. The low number of older patients enrolled in large clinical trials results in a paucity of evidence to guide oncologists in the appropriate management of this population. In early-stage disease, clinical dilemmas arise regarding the ability of older patients to undergo successful curative surgical procedures and the risk/benefit ratio of adjuvant chemotherapy. The management of metastatic disease raises questions regarding the clinical benefit of various anticancer therapies and the role of combination therapy with possible increased toxicity in the noncurative setting. Overall, the available evidence shows that fit older patients are able to tolerate treatment and derive similar clinical benefits to younger patients. Limited data are available to guide treatment for less-fit, more-vulnerable older patients. This lack of data leads to variations in treatment patterns in older adults, making them less likely to receive standard therapies. This review provides an overview of the available data regarding the management of older adults with colon cancer in the adjuvant and metastatic settings.
Efrat Dotan, Elizabeth Handorf, Caitlin R. Meeker, Bianca Lewis, Kelly Filchner, Jennifer S. Winn, and Lori J. Goldstein
Introduction: Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended for evaluating an older cancer patient’s fitness for treatment; however, it is underutilized in the community. We sought to define the gaps that exist in community oncology practices in the assessment and management of older MBC patients through implementation and training on the use of GA for the care of older MBC patients. Methods: The first phase evaluated community oncology providers using questionnaires regarding their assessment and management of older MBC patients. The second phase included training through implementation of a patient self-administered GA among patients ≥65-years-old with MBC. The providers were blinded to the results of the GA and provided their assessment. Comparison of the 2 evaluations was conducted. The GA was ultimately shared with the providers, who were questioned about the effect of the results on care recommendations. Results: 43 providers from 10 practices were enrolled. Phase I revealed the majority (77%) of providers recognized the utility of GA, yet only 42% routinely conducted a GA pretreatment. Most providers (77%) reported evaluating various GA domains through patient interview rather than validated assessments. Validated scales were used in low rates to evaluate cognition (23%), psychosocial status (12%), and toxicity risk (9%). The limited use of validated assessment tools was not influenced by the provider’s demographics or their views of GA utility. Eighty patients took part in the training phase of the study to date, with average age 74 (range, 65–90) and 84% Caucasian. The majority of patients had subtype ER/PR+, HER2- (75%) and 46% were on first-line therapy. 277 recommended interventions were identified: 174 immediate interventions and 103 suggested interventions. Following review of these results, providers reported being surprised in 40% of the cases, mainly with lower than expected cognitive or social support scores. The providers reported plans for change in management in 44% of the patients as a result of the GA findings. Conclusion: Despite acknowledgement of the value associated with pretreatment GA, it is rarely used in the community. Furthermore, interview rather than validated assessment tools are used to identify age-related concerns. In our preliminary results, the GA identified a large number of deficient areas that had not been identified through the provider’s assessment, and resulted in management change. Additional updated results will be presented at the conference.
Bianca Lewis, Caitlin R. Meeker, Elizabeth Handorf, Kelly Filchner, Rino Seedor, Jennifer S. Winn, Lori J. Goldstein, and Efrat Dotan
Sonali Agrawal, Caitlin R. Meeker, Sandeep Aggarwal, Elizabeth A. Handorf, Sunil Adige, Efrat Dotan, Crystal S. Denlinger, William H. Ward, Jeffrey M. Farma, and Namrata Vijayvergia
Ann M. Berger, Kathi Mooney, Amy Alvarez-Perez, William S. Breitbart, Kristen M. Carpenter, David Cella, Charles Cleeland, Efrat Dotan, Mario A. Eisenberger, Carmen P. Escalante, Paul B. Jacobsen, Catherine Jankowski, Thomas LeBlanc, Jennifer A. Ligibel, Elizabeth Trice Loggers, Belinda Mandrell, Barbara A. Murphy, Oxana Palesh, William F. Pirl, Steven C. Plaxe, Michelle B. Riba, Hope S. Rugo, Carolina Salvador, Lynne I. Wagner, Nina D. Wagner-Johnston, Finly J. Zachariah, Mary Anne Bergman, and Courtney Smith
Cancer-related fatigue is defined as a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with usual functioning. It is one of the most common side effects in patients with cancer. Fatigue has been shown to be a consequence of active treatment, but it may also persist into posttreatment periods. Furthermore, difficulties in end-of-life care can be compounded by fatigue. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cancer-Related Fatigue provide guidance on screening for fatigue and recommendations for interventions based on the stage of treatment. Interventions may include education and counseling, general strategies for the management of fatigue, and specific nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions. Fatigue is a frequently underreported complication in patients with cancer and, when reported, is responsible for reduced quality of life. Therefore, routine screening to identify fatigue is an important component in improving the quality of life for patients living with cancer.
David S. Ettinger, Charles R. Handorf, Mark Agulnik, Daniel W. Bowles, Justin M. Cates, Mihaela Cristea, Efrat Dotan, Keith D. Eaton, Panagiotis M. Fidias, David Gierada, G. Weldon Gilcrease, Kelly Godby, Renuka Iyer, Renato Lenzi, John Phay, Asif Rashid, Leonard Saltz, Richard B. Schwab, Lawrence N. Shulman, Jeffrey B. Smerage, Marvaretta M. Stevenson, Gauri R. Varadhachary, Jonathan S. Zager, Weining (Ken) Zhen, Mary Anne Bergman, and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass
The NCCN Guidelines for Occult Primary tumors provide recommendations for the evaluation, workup, management, and follow-up of patients with occult primary tumors (cancers of unknown primary). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2014 NCCN Occult Primary panel meeting. The panel discussed gene expression profiling (GEP) for the identification of the tissue of origin and concluded that, although GEP has a diagnostic benefit, a clinical benefit has not been demonstrated. The panel recommends against GEP as standard management, although 20% of the panel believes the diagnostic benefit of GEP warrants its routine use. In addition, the panel discussed testing for actionable mutations (eg, ALK) to help guide choice of therapy, but declined to add this recommendation.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Margaret A. Tempero, Mokenge P. Malafa, E. Gabriela Chiorean, Brian Czito, Courtney Scaife, Amol K. Narang, Christos Fountzilas, Brian M. Wolpin, Mahmoud Al-Hawary, Horacio Asbun, Stephen W. Behrman, Al B. Benson III, Ellen Binder, Dana B. Cardin, Charles Cha, Vincent Chung, Mary Dillhoff, Efrat Dotan, Cristina R. Ferrone, George Fisher, Jeffrey Hardacre, William G. Hawkins, Andrew H. Ko, Noelle LoConte, Andrew M. Lowy, Cassadie Moravek, Eric K. Nakakura, Eileen M. O’Reilly, Jorge Obando, Sushanth Reddy, Sarah Thayer, Robert A. Wolff, Jennifer L. Burns, and Griselda Zuccarino-Catania
The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma discuss the diagnosis and management of adenocarcinomas of the exocrine pancreas and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2019 version of the guidelines, focusing on postoperative adjuvant treatment of patients with pancreatic cancers.
Arti Hurria, Tanya Wildes, Sarah L. Blair, Ilene S. Browner, Harvey Jay Cohen, Mollie deShazo, Efrat Dotan, Barish H. Edil, Martine Extermann, Apar Kishor P. Ganti, Holly M. Holmes, Reshma Jagsi, Mohana B. Karlekar, Nancy L. Keating, Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki, June M. McKoy, Bruno C. Medeiros, Ewa Mrozek, Tracey O’Connor, Hope S. Rugo, Randall W. Rupper, Rebecca A. Silliman, Derek L. Stirewalt, William P. Tew, Louise C. Walter, Alva B. Weir III, Mary Anne Bergman, and Hema Sundar
Cancer is the leading cause of death in older adults aged 60 to 79 years. The biology of certain cancers and responsiveness to therapy changes with the patient’s age. Advanced age alone should not preclude the use of effective treatment that could improve quality of life or extend meaningful survival. The challenge of managing older patients with cancer is to assess whether the expected benefits of treatment are superior to the risk in a population with decreased life expectancy and decreased tolerance to stress. These guidelines provide an approach to decision-making in older cancer patients based on comprehensive geriatric assessment and also include diseasespecific issues related to age in the management of some cancer types in older adults.