Review ArticleReview

Systemic therapy of non-colorectal gastrointestinal malignancies in the elderly

Avni M. Desai and Stuart M. Lichtman
Cancer Biology & Medicine December 2015, 12 (4) 284-291; DOI: https://doi.org/10.7497/j.issn.2095-3941.2015.0078

Abstract

In the coming years life expectancy is expected to increase and with this the percentage of the population above age 65 will grow. Patients above 65 make up more than two thirds of those currently diagnosed with gastrointestinal malignancies. Available evidence based medicine does not focus on the average patient, above the age 70, encountered in every day practice. Most guidelines and clinical trials are not designed to take into account the special considerations needed when treating the elderly such as functional status, comorbidities, polypharmacy, life expectancy, and social support. The majority of available data is based on retrospective reviews or subset analyses of larger studies where the elderly represent a fraction of the studied population. This review focuses on the toxicities and tolerability of current standard therapies for non-colorectal gastrointestinal malignancies, including gastroesophageal, pancreatic, bile duct and hepatocellular cancers in the elderly. With careful patient selection and geriatric assessment the elderly can safely benefit from standard therapies offered to younger patients.

keywords

Introduction

More than two thirds of gastrointestinal cancers are diagnosed in patients older than age 65 (Table 1). In coming years the percentage of the population over age 65 is only expected to increase as life expectancy increases due to the aging of the population and control of comorbidity1. Evidence based medicine is lacking for the elderly as many studies do not include many patients above the age of 702. Clinical trials are not specifically designed to evaluate this age group, limiting our understanding of the toxicities and benefits of cancer therapies in the elderly. Patients aged 65 and over represent only 22%-32% of patients enrolled in clinical trials, while they represent 63% of the population with cancer3–7.

View this table:
1

Median age at diagnosis and death of non-colorectal gastrointestinal malignancies

There are no clear guidelines to treat elderly patients and they are often not offered therapies that are known to improve overall survival (OS). Concerns regarding ability to tolerate therapy, comorbidities and poor social support hinder accrual of older patients to clinical trials8. Small studies and subset analyses have shown older patients can tolerate chemotherapy at similar dose intensity as younger patients without a significant impact on quality of life9.

Areas of particular concern in the aging population include comorbidities, polypharmacy, life expectancy, and social support. Physiologic age rather than chronologic age predicts toxicity associated with therapy. In particular, functional capacity, which does not correlate with Karnofsky performance score (KPS) or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and comorbidity, is a useful predictor of the toxicity and benefit of systemic chemotherapy, as well as survival, morbidity and mortality in elderly cancer patients10. Patients above the age of 80 are more likely to be functionally dependent, and incapable of independent living. They often require help with instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) as well as activities of daily living (ADLs). IADLs consist of ability to prepare meals, go shopping, utilize transportation, manage finances, and phone use. ADLs include feeding, bathing, and dressing. The survival of the elderly is often reliant on social support and caregiver assistance11–13.

The elderly are a heterogeneous population making incorporation of assessments such as comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which includes ADL/IADLs evaluation, Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and geriatric depression scale (GDS) important. Assessments such as frailty screens and CGA can aid in preventing both over and under treatment of patients of a certain age14. In a study of patients above the age of 70, with the observational group receiving standard chemotherapy and the intervention group receiving a geriatrician led CGA, the group undergoing CGA were more likely to finish planned chemotherapy with less dose modifications15. Life expectancy predictors can also be useful in determining which elderly patients may derive benefit from curative or palliative therapy16–19.

Other precautions in treatment must be taken when treating older patients with chemotherapy due to decrease in glomerular filtration rate, impaired ability to repair mucosal barriers and decreased hematopoietic reserve. Toxicities include cardiotoxicity, mucocitis and neuropathy maybe more debilitating in older patients20–23. This review focuses on the toxicities and tolerability of current standard therapies for non-colorectal gastrointestinal malignancies, including gastroesophageal, pancreatic, bile duct and hepatocellular cancers in the elderly. Unfortunately, there are no large prospective studies in the elderly patient population. This highlights that these trials are needed so that clinicians can make evidenced based decisions2.

Pancreatic cancer

The 5-year OS for pancreatic cancer is less than 5%, and the majority of diagnosed patients are above the age of 65. Pancreatic cancer is the seventh most common cause of cancer related deaths in both males and females worldwide based on data collected by the World Health Organization (WHO). In developed countries it is the fourth most common cause of cancer related deaths. Statistics are based on GLOBOCAN estimates from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)24,25.

Adjuvant therapy

Older patients are more likely to present at an early stage and surgery is the only curative option. Surgical resection with pancreatoduodenectomy is safe in the elderly. In 138 patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, age >70, operative mortality and complication rate was similar to that of younger patients. OS was thought to be slightly lower due to age related comorbidities26.

Following pancreatic cancer two agents have shown benefit in improving OS in the adjuvant setting, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and gemcitabine. The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC-1) trial showed an increase in OS of 19.7 vs. 14 months with 5-FU, compared to no chemotherapy (HR =0.66; P=0.0005)27. Gemcitabine was found to improve OS and progression free survival (PFS) compared to no chemotherapy, median OS 22.8 vs. 20.2 months (P=0.005), in the CONKO-1 study28. Subsequently gemcitabine and 5-FU/leucovorin (LV) groups showed similar OSs of 23 and 23.6 months in the ESPAC-3 trial29. Gemcitabine is recommended in elderly patients, as there were less adverse events than in the 5-FU arm.

The average age of patients with pancreatic cancer in the community does not reflect that of patients in larger phase III clinical trials. The elderly are underrepresented, with ESPAC-1 having a median age of 61 and Charité Onkologie (CONKO-001) having a median age of 61.

A smaller Australian study demonstrated older patients (aged >70) were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (51.5% vs. 29.8%; P<0.0001). Patients above the age of 70 had an exceptionally poor outcome when adjuvant therapy was not delivered (median survival =13.1 months; HR =1.89; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78; P=0.002)30. A population based study showed patients of older age were less likely to receive adjuvant therapy31. Selected elderly patients derive similar benefit from adjuvant therapies; however they were less likely to receive them32. In a retrospective review of resected patients, there was no difference in outcomes when patients over 70 years were compared to younger33.

Chemoradiation in the adjuvant and locally advanced setting

Multiple trials have shown the use of chemoradiation in the adjuvant setting has been of conflicting benefit in improvement of OS. In a series of patients >75 receiving chemoradiation in the locally advanced or adjuvant setting, a similar OS to younger patients receiving similar therapy was noted. In a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital, adjuvant therapy in elderly patients ≥75 had a protective effect with respect to 2-year survival [relative risk (RR) =0.58; P=0.044), but not 5-year survival (RR =0.80; P=0.258). For patients less than age 75, adjuvant chemoradiation was significantly associated with 2- and 5-year survival34.

Metastatic disease

Gemcitabine has been established as the superior to 5-FU in patients with metastatic disease with median OS of 5.6 vs. 4.4 months. The 1-year OS was 18% vs. 2%. Significant clinical improvement was noted in 23.8% of patients with gemcitabine vs. 4.8% of patients treated with 5-FU35. A retrospective study showed that 59% of patients ≥70 were able to receive full does of gemcitabine 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Patients >70 had similar toxicities, OS and benefit compared to those below the age of 70 in a pooled analysis of 7 prospective phase II and III clinical trials36. PFS and OS were the same as for younger historical patients. Aside from the addition of erlotinib and nab paclitaxel to gemcitabine, other combinations of chemotherapy with gemcitabine have not been shown to improve OS. The addition of erlotinib in the elderly is not routinely recommended as it improves OS by 6.24 vs. 5.91 months37. Nab paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine improved OS by 1.8 months over gemcitabine alone. The median age of patients was 62, with at least 10% older than age 75 and 8% with an ECOG PS 2 38. FOLFIRINOX (5-FU, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin) has been shown to improve OS by 4.3 months over gemcitabine; however patients above the age of 75 were excluded. The significantly higher incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events with FOLFIRIOX vs. gemcitabine, including neutropenia and neuropathy, may make FOLFIRINOX less tolerable in the frailer elderly population39.

A German retrospective analysis of 53 patients ≥70, 81% of whom received gemcitabine chemotherapy showed similar survivals to those of younger age. Second line therapy appeared to improve survival relative to best supportive care alone. The 5-FU oxaliplatin combinations have shown benefit in this setting40.

Gastroesophageal cancers

Gastric cancer

The majority of gastroesophageal cancers are diagnosed in patients older than age 65. Based on statistics from data collected by the WHO and GLOBOCAN estimates from the IARC, gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer related deaths in males and the fifth most common cause of cancer related deaths in females worldwide. In developing countries it is the third most common cause of cancer related deaths in males and the fourth most common cause of cancer related deaths in females. An estimated 951,600 new stomach cancer cases and 723,100 deaths occurred in 2012. Incidence varies by country, remaining high in countries in Eastern Asia, South America and Central and Eastern Europe. Gastric cancer is now less common in North America and Western European countries25,41.

Perioperative therapy

The addition of chemotherapy improves OS compared to curative surgery alone. The Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial showed perioperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU (ECF) improved 5-year survival from 23% to 36.3% compared to surgery alone. About 20% of patients were ≥70. Survival benefit was similar in those older than 70 compared to those who were younger. Only half of the patients were able to receive the adjuvant portion of chemotherapy42. Given concerns for cardiotoxicity with epirubicin and similar survival benefits of 5-FU and platinum regimens compared to regimens containing 5-FU, platinum and epirubicin, epirubicin is not often used in the elderly. Based on REAL-2 data showing less toxicity and increased OS with epirubicin, oxaliplatin, capecitabine (EOX) over ECF, oxaliplatin is preferred over cisplatin in combination with 5-FU or capecitabine.

Adjuvant therapy

Adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer was shown to improve OS in a meta-analysis43. Most benefit is derived from 5-FU-based chemotherapy and the benefits were independent on age. Based on the intergroup trial 0116, adjuvant 5-FU followed by chemoradiation and additional 5-FU is used in the United States due to significant improvement in OS and relapse free survival. Of note greater than 50% of those patients had less than a D1 resection. About 54% underwent a D0 resection and 36% underwent a D1 resection. 10% underwent D2 resection, which is standard in Japan44. D2 lymphadenectomy, involving a more extensive lymph node dissection compared to D1 resection of lymph nodes close to the primary tumor, has been associated with decreased locoregional recurrence and gastric cancer related mortality relative to D1 resection. These results have differed between Western and Eastern countries45–48.

The use of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine was also supported with the S-1 trial from Japan showing 80.1% vs. 70.1% 3-year OS benefit. S-1 therapy is standard for 1 year following D2 resection versus surgery alone in Japan based on these findings. Of patients treated on the S1 arm, 25.9% of patients were of ages >70-80 years. The benefit of improved OS was present across all age groups49. The capecitabine and oxaliplatin adjuvant study in stomach cancer (CLASSIC) trial evaluated adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin, demonstrating 74% DFS with chemotherapy versus 59% in the D2 resection arm alone50.

Esophageal cancer

An estimated 455,800 new esophageal cancer cases and 400,200 cancer deaths occurred in 2012 based on data collected by the WHO and GLOBOCAN estimates from the IARC. The highest incidence of esophageal cancer is in Eastern Asia, Eastern and Southern Africa, with the lowest in Western Africa25.

Preoperative chemoradiation

Preoperative therapy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma has been studied in a number of randomized trials prior to curative surgical resection. Therapy in the preoperative setting is often better tolerated than adjuvant therapy and the elderly benefit with a slight increase in toxicity51. Patients above the age of 70 had similar 3-year OS to those who were younger. Carboplatin and paclitaxel has been utilized as a radiosensitizer as per the Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study (CROSS) trial. Although the median age in the trial was 60, patients up to age 79 were enrolled52. A series of patients at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center receiving preoperative chemoradiation were found to have similar perioperative mortality and post operative complication rate in patients greater than age 70 compared to those less than age 7051. Although surgical resection is the mainstay of curative therapy, definitive chemoradiation is utilized in patients with squamous cell carcinoma rather than adenocarcinoma with complete clinical response and in patients who are poor surgical candidates.

Metastatic disease

Patients above the age of 65 are not well represented in trials for metastatic gastroesophageal cancer. The median age of patients the V325 trial showing improved OS of 9.2 vs. 8.6 months for docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-FU (DCF) vs. 5-FU and cisplatin (EF) alone was 55 years. Patients aged 65 and above comprised 24% of enrolled patients. Higher incidence of toxicity did not affect clinical benefit and quality of life. Grade 3 and 4 infection related to treatment occurred more often in those aged 65 or older in DCF (20%) vs. CF (9%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 29% of patients with DCF53.

Non-inferiority in OS of EOX compared to ECF, ECX and EOX was established by the REAL-2 [randomised study of ECF for advanced or locally advanced esophagogastric cancer (OG)] trial. EOX was shown to have increased OS of 11.2 vs. 9.9 months with ECF with less toxicity. The median age in this trial was between age 61 and 65 in the different arms54. Given concerns for cardiotoxicity with epirubicin and similar survival benefits of 5-FU and platinum regimens compared to regimens containing 5-FU, platinum and epirubicin, epirubicin is not often used in the elderly.

In patients with human epithelial growth factor receptor (HER2) amplified gastric and gastroesophageal junction tumors, the addition of trastuzumab to 5-FU and cisplatin showed a survival advantage of 13.8 vs. 11 months for chemotherapy alone in the trastuzumab for gastric cancer (ToGA) trial. A prespecified sub-group of patients by age demonstrated patients above age 60 also had a significant benefit in OS. Around 5% of patients developed asymptomatic decrease in EF to <50%55.

Small studies and pooled analysis for patients aged ≥70 showed no change in grade III/IV toxicities, OS and response rates. A German retrospective analysis of 55 patients ≥70 years, the majority of whom received a combination of two cytotoxic medications showed survival similar to current phase III trial results for advanced gastroesophageal cancer that included patients with a younger median age. PFS and OS were 5.8 and 9.5 months. Second line therapy appeared to have benefit compared to best supportive care. Patients above the age of 75 had similar OS. Those with ECOG PS ≤2 had worse outcomes40.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

HCC is the second most common cause of cancer related death worldwide in men. Increased rates are found in less developed countries of Asia, Northern and Western Africa. More developed countries have lower incidence25. The average age of patients with HCC continues to increase worldwide with a median age of diagnosis of 63 years in the United States. Multiple retrospective reviews have shown similar OS in patients above the age of 70 compared to those less than 70. As survival has been shown to be dependent on stage of HCC rather than age, elderly with good functional status should be considered for all standard treatment options, including local therapies such as transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) or resection as appropriate56–58.

Advanced disease

For advanced or metastatic HCC not amenable to local therapy, the standard of care is sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor. The phase III Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial, with a median age of 64.9 years, showed sorafenib increased OS by 3 months compared to placebo59. Subsequently, a series of patients, with a median age of 76, had a similar median OS of 10 months compared to 10.7 months in the SHARP trial60. Sorafenib also appears to be well tolerated in this series of elderly patients, with similar treatment related adverse effects noted as in the SHARP trial60.

Biliary tract cancers

The incidence of biliary tract cancer, including cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer, increases with age. While biliary tract carcinoma is uncommon in Western countries there is increased prevalence in other areas of the world, such as Southeast Asia. In a Japanese review, curative resection had similar mortality and survival rates for patients over the age of 75 compared to those younger than 75.

Metastatic disease

For advanced disease the phase III advanced biliary cancer (ABC-02) trial demonstrated an increase in median survival of 11.7 vs. 8.1 months with cisplatin and gemcitabine compared to the gemcitabine alone group. While the median age was only 63.9 years, the study included patients up to age 81.961. A Japanese retrospective analysis of patients treated with palliative chemotherapy for biliary tract cancers showed similar OS of 10.4 vs. 11.5 months in patients ≥75 compared to those <75 years. The frequency of adverse effects was similar between both age groups62. Another retrospective analysis including biliary tract cancers as well as pancreatic cancer showed similar adverse events, dose intensities and OS in the elderly compared to younger patients who received systemic gemcitabine63. A small retrospective review of 20 patients with a median age of 74 showed manageable toxicities and comparable OS to younger patients64. Systemic therapy with gemcitabine alone rather than combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and a platinum agent may be more appropriate for elderly with decreased functional status and multiple comorbidities due to concerns of increased toxicity with cisplatin.

Conclusion

As the population ages and the number of patients over the age of 65 grow, it is increasingly important to understand that the elderly are a heterogeneous group. Incorporating an increasing percentage of patients above 65 into clinical trials, reflecting the average patient population, will enhance our understanding of the benefits and challenges in selecting both appropriate therapies as well as the appropriate patients for treatment in an elderly population.

While awaiting increased evidence based data, patients with good functional status and adequate life expectancy, exceeding the expected survival from the diagnosed malignancy, should be offered standard chemotherapy without dose reduction. For those with multiple comorbidities, poor functional status and decreased life expectancy, best supportive care or therapy modifications are appropriate. Future studies including the elderly with a range of functional status are needed to help guide therapy in the population most affected by gastrointestinal malignancy65,66.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest statement No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

  • Received September 18, 2015.
  • Accepted November 19, 2015.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.↵
    2. Lichtman SM,
    3. Hurria A,
    4. Jacobsen PB.
    Geriatric oncology: an overview. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2521–2522.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    2. Scher KS,
    3. Hurria A.
    Under-representation of older adults in cancer registration trials: known problem, little progress. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2036–2038.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    2. Hutchins LF,
    3. Unger JM,
    4. Crowley JJ,
    5. Coltman CA Jr.,
    6. Albain KS.
    Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N Engl J Med 1999;341:2061–2067.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    2. Murthy VH,
    3. Krumholz HM,
    4. Gross CP.
    Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 2004;291:2720–2726.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    2. Yee KW,
    3. Pater JL,
    4. Pho L,
    5. Zee B,
    6. Siu LL.
    Enrollment of older patients in cancer treatment trials in Canada: why is age a barrier? J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1618–1623.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.
    2. Vercelli M,
    3. Capocaccia R,
    4. Quaglia A,
    5. Casella C,
    6. Puppo A,
    7. Coebergh JW.
    Relative survival in elderly European cancer patients: evidence for health care inequalities. The EUROCARE Working Group. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2000;35:161–179.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    2. Talarico L,
    3. Chen G,
    4. Pazdur R.
    Enrollment of elderly patients in clinical trials for cancer drug registration: a 7-year experience by the US Food and Drug Administration. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4626–4631.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    2. Audisio RA,
    3. Bozzetti F,
    4. Gennari R,
    5. Jaklitsch MT,
    6. Koperna T,
    7. Longo WE, et al.
    The surgical management of elderly cancer patients; recommendations of the SIOG surgical task force. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:926–938.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    2. Chen H,
    3. Cantor A,
    4. Meyer J,
    5. Beth Corcoran M,
    6. Grendys E,
    7. Cavanaugh D, et al.
    Can older cancer patients tolerate chemotherapy? A prospective pilot study. Cancer 2003;97:1107–1114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    2. Extermann M,
    3. Overcash J,
    4. Lyman GH,
    5. Parr J,
    6. Balducci L.
    Comorbidity and functional status are independent in older cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1582–1587.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    2. Hurria A,
    3. Togawa K,
    4. Mohile SG,
    5. Owusu C,
    6. Klepin HD,
    7. Gross CP, et al.
    Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3457–3465.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.
    2. Extermann M,
    3. Hurria A.
    Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1824–1831.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    2. Mohile SG,
    3. Xian Y,
    4. Dale W,
    5. Fisher SG,
    6. Rodin M,
    7. Morrow GR, et al.
    Association of a cancer diagnosis with vulnerability and frailty in older Medicare beneficiaries. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1206–1215.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    2. Audisio RA,
    3. van Leeuwen B.
    When reporting on older patients with cancer, frailty information is needed. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:4–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    2. Kalsi T,
    3. Babic-Illman G,
    4. Ross PJ,
    5. Maisey NR,
    6. Hughes S,
    7. Fields P, et al.
    The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment interventions on tolerance to chemotherapy in older people. Br J Cancer 2015;112:1435–1444.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    2. Balducci L.
    Aging, frailty, and chemotherapy. Cancer Control 2007;14:7–12.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.
    2. Fried LP,
    3. Tangen CM,
    4. Walston J,
    5. Newman AB,
    6. Hirsch C,
    7. Gottdiener J, et al.
    Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M146–M156.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    2. Wildiers H,
    3. Heeren P,
    4. Puts M,
    5. Topinkova E,
    6. Janssen-Heijnen ML,
    7. Extermann M, et al.
    International society of geriatric oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2595–2603.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    2. Puts MT,
    3. Santos B,
    4. Hardt J,
    5. Monette J,
    6. Girre V,
    7. Atenafu EG, et al.
    An update on a systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment for older adults in oncology. Ann Oncol 2014;25:307–315.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    2. Hurria A,
    3. Wildes T,
    4. Blair SL,
    5. Browner IS,
    6. Cohen HJ,
    7. Deshazo M, et al.
    Senior adult oncology, version 2.2014: clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014;12:82–126.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.
    2. Launay-Vacher V,
    3. Aapro M,
    4. De Castro G Jr.,
    5. Cohen E,
    6. Deray G,
    7. Dooley M, et al.
    Renal effects of molecular targeted therapies in oncology: a review by the Cancer and the Kidney International Network (C-KIN). Ann Oncol 2015;26:1677–1684.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    2. Launay-Vacher V,
    3. Chatelut E,
    4. Lichtman SM,
    5. Wildiers H,
    6. Steer C,
    7. Aapro M.
    Renal insufficiency in elderly cancer patients: International Society of Geriatric Oncology clinical practice recommendations. Ann Oncol 2007;18:1314–1321.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    2. Lichtman SM,
    3. Wildiers H,
    4. Launay-Vacher V,
    5. Steer C,
    6. Chatelut E,
    7. Aapro M.
    International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) recommendations for the adjustment of dosing in elderly cancer patients with renal insufficiency. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:14–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    2. Jemal A,
    3. Bray F,
    4. Center MM,
    5. Ferlay J,
    6. Ward E,
    7. Forman D.
    Global cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2011;61:69–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    2. Torre LA,
    3. Bray F,
    4. Siegel RL,
    5. Ferlay J,
    6. Lortet-Tieulent J,
    7. Jemal A.
    Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:87–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    2. Fong Y,
    3. Blumgart LH,
    4. Fortner JG,
    5. Brennan MF.
    Pancreatic or liver resection for malignancy is safe and effective for the elderly. Ann Surg 1995;222:426–434; discussion 34-37.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    2. Neoptolemos JP,
    3. Dunn JA,
    4. Stocken DD,
    5. Almond J,
    6. Link K,
    7. Beger H, et al.
    Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358:1576–1585.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    2. Oettle H,
    3. Post S,
    4. Neuhaus P,
    5. Gellert K,
    6. Langrehr J,
    7. Ridwelski K, et al.
    Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007;297:267–277.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    2. Neoptolemos JP,
    3. Stocken DD,
    4. Bassi C,
    5. Ghaneh P,
    6. Cunningham D,
    7. Goldstein D, et al.
    Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010;304:1073–1081.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    2. Nagrial AM,
    3. Chang DK,
    4. Nguyen NQ,
    5. Johns AL,
    6. Chantrill LA,
    7. Humphris JL, et al.
    Adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 2014;110:313–319.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    2. Davila JA,
    3. Chiao EY,
    4. Hasche JC,
    5. Petersen NJ,
    6. McGlynn KA,
    7. Shaib YH.
    Utilization and determinants of adjuvant therapy among older patients who receive curative surgery for pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 2009;38:e18–e25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    2. Barbas AS,
    3. Turley RS,
    4. Ceppa EP,
    5. Reddy SK,
    6. Blazer DG 3rd,
    7. Clary BM, et al.
    Comparison of outcomes and the use of multimodality therapy in young and elderly people undergoing surgical resection of pancreatic cancer. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:344–350.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    2. Frakes JM,
    3. Strom T,
    4. Springett GM,
    5. Hoffe SE,
    6. Balducci L,
    7. Hodul P, et al.
    Resected pancreatic cancer outcomes in the elderly. J Geriatr Oncol 2015;6:127–132.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    2. Horowitz DP,
    3. Hsu CC,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Makary MA,
    6. Winter JM,
    7. Robinson R, et al.
    Adjuvant chemoradiation therapy after pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;80:1391–1397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    2. Burris HA, 3rd.,
    3. Moore MJ,
    4. Andersen J,
    5. Green MR,
    6. Rothenberg ML,
    7. Modiano MR, et al.
    Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2403–2413.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    2. Maréchal R,
    3. Demols A,
    4. Gay F,
    5. de Maertelaer V,
    6. Arvanitaki M,
    7. Hendlisz A, et al.
    Tolerance and efficacy of gemcitabine and gemcitabine-based regimens in elderly patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 2008;36:e16–e21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    2. Moore MJ,
    3. Goldstein D,
    4. Hamm J,
    5. Figer A,
    6. Hecht JR,
    7. Gallinger S, et al.
    Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1960–1966.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    2. Von Hoff DD,
    3. Ervin T,
    4. Arena FP,
    5. Chiorean EG,
    6. Infante J,
    7. Moore M, et al.
    Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1691–1703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    2. Conroy T,
    3. Desseigne F,
    4. Ychou M,
    5. Bouche O,
    6. Guimbaud R,
    7. Becouarn Y, et al.
    FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1817–1825.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    2. Berger AK,
    3. Zschaebitz S,
    4. Komander C,
    5. Jager D,
    6. Haag GM.
    Palliative chemotherapy for gastroesophageal cancer in old and very old patients: A retrospective cohort study at the National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:4911–4918.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    2. Ferro A,
    3. Peleteiro B,
    4. Malvezzi M,
    5. Bosetti C,
    6. Bertuccio P,
    7. Levi F, et al.
    Worldwide trends in gastric cancer mortality (1980-2011), with predictions to 2015, and incidence by subtype. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:1330–1344.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    2. Cunningham D,
    3. Allum WH,
    4. Stenning SP,
    5. Thompson JN,
    6. Van de Velde CJ,
    7. Nicolson M, et al.
    Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;355:11–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    2. Hermans J,
    3. Bonenkamp JJ,
    4. Boon MC,
    5. Bunt AM,
    6. Ohyama S,
    7. Sasako M, et al.
    Adjuvant therapy after curative resection for gastric cancer: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1441–1447.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    2. Macdonald JS,
    3. Smalley SR,
    4. Benedetti J,
    5. Hundahl SA,
    6. Estes NC,
    7. Stemmermann GN, et al.
    Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med 2001;345:725–730.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    2. Degiuli M,
    3. Sasako M,
    4. Ponti A,
    5. Vendrame A,
    6. Tomatis M,
    7. Mazza C, et al.
    Randomized clinical trial comparing survival after D1 or D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br J Surg 2014;101:23–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.
    2. Smith DD,
    3. Schwarz RR,
    4. Schwarz RE.
    Impact of total lymph node count on staging and survival after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a large US-population database. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7114–7124.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.
    2. Wu CW,
    3. Hsiung CA,
    4. Lo SS,
    5. Hsieh MC,
    6. Chen JH,
    7. Li AF, et al.
    Nodal dissection for patients with gastric cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:309–315.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    2. Songun I,
    3. Putter H,
    4. Kranenbarg EM,
    5. Sasako M,
    6. van de Velde CJ.
    Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:439–449.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    2. Sakuramoto S,
    3. Sasako M,
    4. Yamaguchi T,
    5. Kinoshita T,
    6. Fujii M,
    7. Nashimoto A, et al.
    Adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer with S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1810–1820.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    2. Bang YJ,
    3. Kim YW,
    4. Yang HK,
    5. Chung HC,
    6. Park YK,
    7. Lee KH, et al.
    Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): a phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;379:315–321.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    2. Rice DC,
    3. Correa AM,
    4. Vaporciyan AA,
    5. Sodhi N,
    6. Smythe WR,
    7. Swisher SG, et al.
    Preoperative chemoradiotherapy prior to esophagectomy in elderly patients is not associated with increased morbidity. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:391–397; discussionn 391-397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    2. van Hagen P,
    3. Hulshof MC,
    4. van Lanschot JJ,
    5. Steyerberg EW,
    6. van Berge Henegouwen MI,
    7. Wijnhoven BP, et al.
    Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2074–2084.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    2. Van Cutsem E,
    3. Moiseyenko VM,
    4. Tjulandin S,
    5. Majlis A,
    6. Constenla M,
    7. Boni C, et al.
    Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a report of the V325 Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4991–4997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    2. Cunningham D,
    3. Starling N,
    4. Rao S,
    5. Iveson T,
    6. Nicolson M,
    7. Coxon F, et al.
    Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;358:36–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    2. Bang YJ,
    3. Van Cutsem E,
    4. Feyereislova A,
    5. Chung HC,
    6. Shen L,
    7. Sawaki A, et al.
    Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;376:687–697.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    2. Nishikawa H,
    3. Arimoto A,
    4. Wakasa T,
    5. Kita R,
    6. Kimura T,
    7. Osaki Y.
    Surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical outcomes and safety in elderly patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;25:912–919.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.
    2. Kim YJ,
    3. Jang BK,
    4. Kim ES,
    5. Chung WJ,
    6. Park KS,
    7. Cho KB, et al.
    Hepatocellular carcinoma in the elderly: clinical characteristics, treatment, survival analysis in Korean patients older than 70 years. J Korean Med Sci 2012;27:1147–1154.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    2. Mirici-Cappa F,
    3. Gramenzi A,
    4. Santi V,
    5. Zambruni A,
    6. Di Micoli A,
    7. Frigerio M, et al.
    Treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients are as effective as in younger patients: a 20-year multicentre experience. Gut 2010;59:387–396.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    2. Llovet JM,
    3. Ricci S,
    4. Mazzaferro V,
    5. Hilgard P,
    6. Gane E,
    7. Blanc JF, et al.
    Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2008;359:378–390.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    2. Montella L,
    3. Addeo R,
    4. Cennamo G,
    5. Vincenzi B,
    6. Palmieri R,
    7. Sperlongano P, et al.
    Sorafenib in elderly patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a case series. Oncology 2013;84:265–272.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    2. Valle J,
    3. Wasan H,
    4. Palmer DH,
    5. Cunningham D,
    6. Anthoney A,
    7. Maraveyas A, et al.
    Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1273–1281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    2. Kou T,
    3. Kanai M,
    4. Ikezawa K,
    5. Ajiki T,
    6. Tsukamoto T,
    7. Toyokawa H, et al.
    Comparative outcomes of elderly and non-elderly patients receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:403–408.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    2. Yukisawa S,
    3. Ishii H,
    4. Matsuyama M,
    5. Kuraoka K,
    6. Takano K,
    7. Kamei A, et al.
    Outcomes and tolerability of systemic chemotherapy for pancreatic or biliary cancer patients aged 75 years or older. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2011;41:76–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    2. Castellon Rubio VE,
    3. Gonzalez Cebrian I,
    4. Canosa Ruiz L.
    Cisplatin plus Gemcitabine in Elderly patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma: Torrecardenas Hospital Experience. Ann Oncol 2015;26:iv37.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.↵
    2. Lichtman SM.
    Clinical trial design in older adults with cancer—The need for new paradigms. J Geriatr Oncol 2012;3:368–375.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.↵
    2. Wildiers H,
    3. Mauer M,
    4. Pallis A,
    5. Hurria A,
    6. Mohile SG,
    7. Luciani A, et al.
    End points and trial design in geriatric oncology research: a joint European organisation for research and treatment of cancer--Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology--International Society Of Geriatric Oncology position article. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3711–3718.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords