Outcomes in octogenarians undergoing high-risk cancer operation: A national study
ABSTRACT Current information about outcomes in octogenarians undergoing cancer operations is limited largely to case series from selected centers. Population-based data can provide more realistic estimates of the risks and benefits of operations in this group.
We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing major resections for lung, esophageal, and pancreas cancer. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1994 to 2003), we examined operative mortality and discharge disposition in octogenarians (aged 80+ years), relative to younger patients (aged 65 to 69 years) (n = 272,662). We then used the Surveillance and End Results-Medicare-linked database (1992 to 2001) to measure late survival in the elderly (n = 14,088).
Operative mortality among octogenarians was substantially higher than that of younger patients (aged 65 to 69 years) for all three cancers (esophagectomy, 19.9% versus 8.8%, p < 0.0001; pancreatectomy, 15.5% versus 6.7%, p < 0.0001; lung resection, 6.9% versus 3.7%, p < 0.0001). A large proportion of octogenarians were transferred to extended care facilities after operation, ranging from 24% after lung resection to 44% after esophagectomy. Five-year survival in octogenarians was low for all three cancers: 11% after pancreatectomy, 18% after esophagectomy and 31% after lung cancer resection. Survival among octogenarians with two or more comorbidities was worse than those with fewer comorbid diagnoses--10% versus 14% for pancreatectomy, 15% versus 23% for esophagectomy, and 27% versus 37% for lung resection.
Population-based outcomes after high-risk cancer operation in octogenarians are considerably worse than typically reported in case series and published survival statistics. Such information might better inform clinical decision making in this high-risk group.
SourceAvailable from: Gregory O'Grady[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Surgical resection of oesophageal cancer is a major procedure with potential for significant morbidity and mortality. Patient selection can be challenging, as operative benefit must be balanced against risk and impact on quality of life. This study defines modern trends in patient selection, and evaluates the impact of age, stage, and comorbidities on complications and survival following oesophagectomy, in a tertiary Australian experience. Data were compiled across two 15-year operative eras ('Era 1': 1981-1995; and 'Era 2': 1996-2010), with patients followed minimum 3 years. A total of 180 unselected records were analysed (powered for a relative hazard ratio of 0.5). Analyses defined patient selection trends, and for Era 2, the impact of age, comorbidities (Charlson score), and disease (T/N stage) on complications (Clavien-Dindo grade) and survival (Kaplan-Meier). A further sub-analysis was conducted with data divided into three 10-year periods. The age of operated patients increased from Era 1 to 2 (mean + 5 years; P < 0.001), but survival and complication rates were unchanged, including in patients ≥ 75 years (P > 0.5). In Era 2, reflecting recent practice, survival duration matched T/N stage (P < 0.001) but was independent of age at surgery (P = 0.56) and comorbidity score (P = 0.78). However, grade of worst post-operative complication, including death (rate: 3.8 %), was correlated with both age (P < 0.01) and comorbidity score (P < 0.01). Older patients are now undergoing oesophagectomy. However, if they are selected appropriately, then older patients and those with comorbidities can expect similar stage-matched survival outcomes to younger fitter patients, despite their higher operative risk. Poor outcomes persist in patients with locally advanced disease, and selection in this group should prioritise quality of life.World Journal of Surgery 04/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00268-015-3072-y · 2.35 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program aims to reduce the stress response to surgery and thereby accelerate recovery. It is unclear whether these programs can be safely implemented for elderly patients, especially in highly complex surgery such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an ERAS program in elderly patients undergoing PD.World Journal of Surgery 09/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00268-014-2782-x · 2.35 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: IntroductionMicrowave ablation (MWA) is a relatively new minimally invasive treatment option for lung cancer with substantially lower morbidity and mortality than surgery. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and follow-up imaging of MWA in the elderly aged 75 years and above.Methods Eleven percutaneous computed tomography (CT)-guided MWA of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were performed in 10 patients aged 75 years and older. All but one patient were treated with a high-powered MWA system delivering maximally 140 W. Follow-up with CT and fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) was carried out over a maximum period of 30 months and a median period of 12 months.ResultsThere were no peri-procedural deaths or major complications. Seven patients were disease free at the time of manuscript submission. Three patients showed growth of the treated lesions, one patient aged 90 years deceased due to unknown cause after approximately 18 months. One patient presented with local progression and disseminated metastatic disease at 12 months; he is still alive. One patient showed increasing soft tissue at the ablation site 15 months post-treatment. Three consecutive core biopsies over 2 months failed to confirm tumour recurrence.ConclusionsMWA therapy is a promising option of treating early-stage NSCLC in the elderly with good treatment outcome and negligible morbidity. Determining successful treatment outcome may be challenging at times as local tissue increase and PET-CT positivity do not seem to necessarily correlate with reccurrence of malignancy.Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 11/2014; 59(1). DOI:10.1111/1754-9485.12251 · 0.95 Impact Factor