1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk Factors for Hospitalizations Among Older Adults with Gastrointestinal Cancers

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Older adults (≥65 years) with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers who receive chemotherapy are at increased risk of hospitalization caused by treatment-related toxicity. Geriatric assessment (GA) has been previously shown to predict risk of toxicity in older adults undergoing chemotherapy. However, studies incorporating the GA specifically in older adults with GI cancers have been limited. This study sought to identify GA-based risk factors for chemotherapy toxicity–related hospitalization among older adults with GI cancers.

          Patients and Methods

          We performed a secondary post hoc subgroup analysis of two prospective studies used to develop and validate a GA-based chemotherapy toxicity score. The incidence of unplanned hospitalizations during the course of chemotherapy treatment was determined.

          Results

          This analysis included 199 patients aged ≥65 years with a diagnosis of GI cancer (85 colorectal, 51 gastric/esophageal, and 63 pancreatic/hepatobiliary). Sixty-five (32.7%) patients had ≥1 hospitalization. Univariate analysis identified sex (female), cardiac comorbidity, stage IV disease, low serum albumin, cancer type (gastric/esophageal), hearing deficits, and polypharmacy as risk factors for hospitalization. Multivariable analyses found that patients who had cardiac comorbidity (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.42) were significantly more likely to be hospitalized.

          Conclusion

          Cardiac comorbidity may be a risk factor for hospitalization in older adults with GI cancers receiving chemotherapy. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to examine the relationship between GA measures and hospitalization in this vulnerable population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer statistics, 2020

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2016) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2017) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2020, 1,806,590 new cancer cases and 606,520 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. The cancer death rate rose until 1991, then fell continuously through 2017, resulting in an overall decline of 29% that translates into an estimated 2.9 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. This progress is driven by long-term declines in death rates for the 4 leading cancers (lung, colorectal, breast, prostate); however, over the past decade (2008-2017), reductions slowed for female breast and colorectal cancers, and halted for prostate cancer. In contrast, declines accelerated for lung cancer, from 3% annually during 2008 through 2013 to 5% during 2013 through 2017 in men and from 2% to almost 4% in women, spurring the largest ever single-year drop in overall cancer mortality of 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. Yet lung cancer still caused more deaths in 2017 than breast, prostate, colorectal, and brain cancers combined. Recent mortality declines were also dramatic for melanoma of the skin in the wake of US Food and Drug Administration approval of new therapies for metastatic disease, escalating to 7% annually during 2013 through 2017 from 1% during 2006 through 2010 in men and women aged 50 to 64 years and from 2% to 3% in those aged 20 to 49 years; annual declines of 5% to 6% in individuals aged 65 years and older are particularly striking because rates in this age group were increasing prior to 2013. It is also notable that long-term rapid increases in liver cancer mortality have attenuated in women and stabilized in men. In summary, slowing momentum for some cancers amenable to early detection is juxtaposed with notable gains for other common cancers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons.

            This study evaluated a modified, timed version of the "Get-Up and Go" Test (Mathias et al, 1986) in 60 patients referred to a Geriatric Day Hospital (mean age 79.5 years). The patient is observed and timed while he rises from an arm chair, walks 3 meters, turns, walks back, and sits down again. The results indicate that the time score is (1) reliable (inter-rater and intra-rater); (2) correlates well with log-transformed scores on the Berg Balance Scale (r = -0.81), gait speed (r = -0.61) and Barthel Index of ADL (r = -0.78); and (3) appears to predict the patient's ability to go outside alone safely. These data suggest that the timed "Up & Go" test is a reliable and valid test for quantifying functional mobility that may also be useful in following clinical change over time. The test is quick, requires no special equipment or training, and is easily included as part of the routine medical examination.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The MOS social support survey.

              This paper describes the development and evaluation of a brief, multidimensional, self-administered, social support survey that was developed for patients in the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), a two-year study of patients with chronic conditions. This survey was designed to be comprehensive in terms of recent thinking about the various dimensions of social support. In addition, it was designed to be distinct from other related measures. We present a summary of the major conceptual issues considered when choosing items for the social support battery, describe the items, and present findings based on data from 2987 patients (ages 18 and older). Multitrait scaling analyses supported the dimensionality of four functional support scales (emotional/informational, tangible, affectionate, and positive social interaction) and the construction of an overall functional social support index. These support measures are distinct from structural measures of social support and from related health measures. They are reliable (all Alphas greater than 0.91), and are fairly stable over time. Selected construct validity hypotheses were supported.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Oncologist
                Oncologist
                oncolo
                The Oncologist
                Oxford University Press (US )
                1083-7159
                1549-490X
                January 2022
                28 January 2022
                28 January 2022
                : 27
                : 1
                : e37-e44
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope , Duarte, CA, USA
                [2 ] Patient and Family Resource Center, City of Hope , Duarte, CA, USA
                [3 ] Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Hematology and Oncology, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center , Winston-Salem, NC, USA
                [4 ] Department of Medical Oncology, Hartford Healthcare Cancer Institute , Hartford, CT, USA
                [5 ] Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center , Rochester, NY, USA
                [6 ] Department of Gynecologic Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York, NY, USA
                [7 ] Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Case Western University School of Medicine , Cleveland, OH, USA
                [8 ] Geriatric Oncology Program, Division of Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, NC, USA
                [9 ] Cancer Outcomes Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine , New Haven, CT, USA
                [10 ] Department of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center/Jefferson Health , Philadelphia, PA, USA
                [11 ] Cardinal Health , Dublin, OH, USA
                [12 ] SUNY Upstate Medical University , Syracuse, NY, USA
                [13 ] Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University School of Medicine , Durham, NC, USA
                [14 ] Center for Cancer and Aging, City of Hope , Duarte, CA, USA
                [15 ] Department of Population Sciences , City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA
                [16 ] Department of Supportive Care, City of Hope , Duarte, CA, USA
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Daneng Li, 1500 E Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010, USA; Tel: +1 626 471 9200; Fax: +1 626 301 8233; Email: danli@ 123456coh.org
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5330-7522
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2065-9817
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8815-1641
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6262-1123
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7686-8998
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0867-327X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5115-4470
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2045-4336
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2862-9970
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4146-6192
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4974-935X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5929-0466
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5193-7299
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7983-9615
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8674-9394
                Article
                oyab016
                10.1093/oncolo/oyab016
                8842372
                ccae8298-217f-4eca-80fc-a1491f5bf137
                © The Authors 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 09 July 2021
                : 18 November 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 8
                Funding
                Funded by: Paul Beeson Career Development Award in Aging Research;
                Award ID: K23AG026749
                Funded by: American Society of Clinical Oncology, DOI 10.13039/100006293;
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, DOI 10.13039/100000002;
                Funded by: National Cancer Institute, DOI 10.13039/100000054;
                Award ID: P30CA008748
                Funded by: National Institute on Aging, DOI 10.13039/100000049;
                Award ID: R33AG059206
                Award ID: K24AG055693
                Funded by: Center for Cancer and Aging, DOI 10.13039/100016365;
                Categories
                Geriatric Oncology
                AcademicSubjects/MED00010

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                geriatric assessment,gastrointestinal,cancer,hospitalization
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                geriatric assessment, gastrointestinal, cancer, hospitalization

                Comments

                Comment on this article