Adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with breast cancer: a survey of the Breast International Group (BIG).

BACKGROUND: To collect oncologists' experience and opinion on adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated among the members of the Breast International Group. RESULTS: A total of 277 oncologists from 28 countries participated in the survey. Seventy years is the age cut-off commonly used to define a patient as elderly. Biological age and the biological characteristics of the tumor are the most frequently used criteria to propose adjuvant chemotherapy to an elderly patient. Combination therapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil on days 1 and 8 is the most frequently prescribed regimen. Great interest exists in oral chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: There is interest among those who responded to the survey to validate a comprehensive geriatric assessment for use as a predictive instrument of toxicity and/or activity of anticancer therapy and to evaluate the role of a treatment option that is potentially less toxic and possibly as effective as polychemotherapy.

Guidelines on artificial nutrition versus hydration in terminal cancer patients

Whether a terminally ill cancer patient should be actively fed or simply hydrated through subcutaneous or intravenous infusion of isotonic fluids is a matter of ongoing controversy among clinicians involved in the care of these patients. Under the auspices of the European Association for Palliative Care, a committee of experts developed guidelines to help clinicians make a reasonable decision on what type of nutritional support should be provided on a case-by-case basis. It was acknowledged that part of the controversy related to the definition of the terminal cancer patient, since this is a heterogeneous group of patients with different needs, expectations, and potential for a medical intervention. A major difficulty is the prediction of life expectancy and the patient's likely response to vigorous nutritional support. In an attempt to reach a decision on the type of treatment support (artificial nutrition vs. hydration) which would best meet the needs and expectations of the patient, we propose a three-step process: Step I: define the eight key elements necessary to reach a decision: Step II: make the decision; and Step III: reevaluate the patient and the proposed treatment at specified intervals. Step I involves assessing the patient concerning the following: 1) oncological/clinical condition; 2) symptoms; 3) expected length of survival; 4) hydration and nutritional status; 5) spontaneous or voluntary nutrient intake; 6) psychological profile; 7) gut function and potential route of administration; and 8) need for special services based on type of nutritional support prescribed. Step II involves the overall assessment of pros and cons, based on information determined in Step I, in order to reach an appropriate decision based on a well-defined end point (i.e. improvement of quality of life; maintaining patient survival; attaining rehydration). Step III involves the periodic reevaluation of the decision made in Step II based on the proposed goal and the attained result.

The prognosis of incurable cachectic cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: A multi-centre observational study with prospective follow-up of 414 patients

Background: The role of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in incurable cachectic cancer patients unable to eat is extremely controversial. The aim of this study is to analyse which factors can influence the outcome. Patients and methods: We studied prospectively 414 incurable cachectic (sub)obstructed cancer patients receiving HPN and analysed the association between patient or clinical characteristics and surviving status. Results: Median weight loss, versus pre-disease and last 6-month period, was 24% and 16%, respectively. Median body mass index was 19.5, median KPS was 60, median life expectancy was 3 months. Mean/median survival was 4.7/3.0 months; 50.0% and 22.9% of patients survived 3 and 6 months, respectively. At the multivariable analysis, the variables significantly associated with 3- and 6-month survival were Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and KPS, and GPS, KPS and tumour spread, respectively. By the aggregation of the significant variables, it was possible to dissect several classes of patients with different survival probabilities. Conclusions: The outcome of cachectic incurable cancer patients on HPN is not homogeneous. It is possible to identify groups of patients with a ≥6-month survival (possibly longer than that allowed in starvation). The indications for HPN can be modulated on these clinical/biochemical indices. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.