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

Harvey Jay Cohen, Duke University, Durham
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.43). 09/2013; 31(29). DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.6125
Source: PubMed


Selecting the most appropriate end points for clinical trials is important to assess the value of new treatment strategies. Well-established end points for clinical research exist in oncology but may not be as relevant to the older cancer population because of competing risks of death and potentially increased impact of therapy on global functioning and quality of life. This article discusses specific clinical end points and their advantages and disadvantages for older individuals.Randomized or single-arm phase II trials can provide insight into the range of efficacy and toxicity in older populations but ideally need to be confirmed in phase III trials, which are unfortunately often hindered by the severe heterogeneity of the older cancer population, difficulties with selection bias depending on inclusion criteria, physician perception, and barriers in willingness to participate. All clinical trials in oncology should be without an upper age limit to allow entry of eligible older adults. In settings where so-called standard therapy is not feasible, specific trials for older patients with cancer might be required, integrating meaningful measures of outcome. Not all questions can be answered in randomized clinical trials, and large observational cohort studies or registries within the community setting should be established (preferably in parallel to randomized trials) so that treatment patterns across different settings can be compared with impact on outcome. Obligatory integration of a comparable form of geriatric assessment is recommended in future studies, and regulatory organizations such as the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration should require adequate collection of data on efficacy and toxicity of new drugs in fit and frail elderly subpopulations.

1 Follower
19 Reads
  • Source
    • "Thus, a large proportion of patients are denied the benefit of aggressive treatment. Moreover, many of the prospective clinical trials have excluded this group of patients from the trials, and thus, no worthwhile clinical studies were forthcoming from this age group, especially in developing countries [6] [7]. Therefore, there seems to be a need to integrate and optimize treatment planning for elderly cancer patients to achieve an improved tumor control, quality of life, and survival with better health care [5] [8]-[10]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As a result of vast global improvement of health care and living conditions, the world population is aging. In developed countries, more than half of the cancers occur in patients aged 70 and older. In booming Asian nations, such as India, the aging trend is particularly striking, and therefore geria-tric oncology is rapidly coming at the foreground of oncology practice. As these patients have special needs and a different approach to treatment, there is a strong need for the emergence of ge-riatric oncology as a sub specialty in oncology. Scientific data show that a geriatric assessment identifies many problems in older people with cancer, adds prognostic information, and might improve the outcomes of these patients. There is a genuine unmet requirement to design and implement the following: development of individually tailored geriatric assessment tools for different oncology centers; cooperation of aging and cancer research in the understanding of cancer biology , aging and physiology; improved clinical study designs; development of geriatric oncology programs; and screening tools for geriatric patients made accessible to family physicians.
    International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology 03/2015; 4(4):25-31. DOI:10.4236/ijmpcero.2015.41004
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer societies and research cooperative groups worldwide have urged for the development of cancer trials that will address those outcome measures that are most relevant to older patients. We set out to determine the characteristics and study objectives of current clinical trials in hematological patients. The United States National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry was searched on 1 July 2013, for currently recruiting phase I, II or III clinical trials in hematological malignancies. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website. In the 1207 clinical trials included in this overview, patient-centered outcome measures such as quality of life, health care utilization and functional capacity were only incorporated in a small number of trials (8%, 4% and 0.7% of trials, respectively). Even in trials developed exclusively for older patients, the primary focus lies on standard end points such as toxicity, efficacy and survival, while patient-centered outcome measures are included in less than one-fifth of studies. Currently on-going clinical trials in hematological malignancies are unlikely to significantly improve our knowledge of the optimal treatment of older patients as those outcome measures that are of primary importance to this patient population are still included in only a minority of studies. As a scientific community, we cannot continue to simply acknowledge this issue, but must all participate in taking the necessary steps to enable the delivery of evidence-based, tailor-made and patient-focused cancer care to our rapidly growing elderly patient population.
    Annals of Oncology 01/2014; 25(3). DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdt592 · 7.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prospective data on chemotherapy for elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remain scarce. We compared the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) versus capecitabine in MBC patients aged ≥65 years in a multicentre, phase III trial. Patients were randomized to six cycles of PLD (45 mg/m(2) every 4 weeks) or eight cycles of capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily, day 1-14 every 3 weeks). The study enrolled 78 of the planned 154 patients and was closed prematurely due to slow accrual and supply problems of PLD. Many included patients were aged ≥75 years (54%) and vulnerable (≥1 geriatric condition: 71%). The median dose intensity was 85% for PLD and 84% for capecitabine, respectively. In both arms, the majority of patients completed at least 12 weeks of treatment (PLD 73%; capecitabine 74%). After a median follow-up of 39 months, 77 patients had progressed and 62 patients had died of MBC. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 versus 7.7 months (P = 0.11) for PLD and capecitabine, respectively. Median overall survival was 13.8 months for PLD and 16.8 months for capecitabine (P = 0.59). Both treatments were feasible, grade 3 toxicities consisting of fatigue (both arms: 13%), hand-foot syndrome (PLD: 10%; capecitabine: 16%), stomatitis (PLD: 10%; capecitabine: 3%), exanthema (PLD: 5%) and diarrhoea (PLD: 3%; capecitabine: 5%). Only 1 of 10 patients aged ≥80 years completed chemotherapy, while 3 and 6 patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity or progressive disease, respectively. Both PLD and capecitabine demonstrated comparable efficacy and acceptable tolerance as first-line single-agent chemotherapy in elderly patients with MBC, even in vulnerable patients or patients aged ≥75 years. However, patients aged ≥80 years were unlikely to complete chemotherapy successfully. EudraCT 2006-002046-10; ISRCTN 11114726; CKTO 2006-09; BOOG 2006-02.
    Annals of Oncology 02/2014; 25(3). DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdt588 · 7.04 Impact Factor
Show more


19 Reads
Available from