Sedrak, Mina S.

AbstractAlthough adults aged 65 years or older make up a strong majority of cancer patients, their underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials leads to the lack of representative data to guide evidence-based therapeutic decisions in this patient population. The Trial Design Working Group, convened as part of the workshop titled, Engaging Older Adults in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities, recommended study designs and design elements that could improve accrual of older adults in National Cancer Institute–funded clinical trials. These include trials that are specifically designed to enroll older adults, trials that include a cohort of older patients (parallel cohort, stratified cohort, or embedded cohort), and trials with pragmatic design elements to facilitate enrollment of older adults. This manuscript provides brief descriptions of the recommended designs, examples of successful trials, and considerations for implementation of these designs.As with any clinical trial, the scientific questions and trial objectives should drive the study design, the selection of endpoints and intervention, and eligibility criteria. When designing trials that include older adults, the heterogeneity of fitness levels is an important consideration as fitness can influence accrual rates and outcomes. Appropriately incorporating geriatric assessments can help identify the optimal subset of older patients for inclusion and minimize selection bias. Incorporating pragmatic design elements to reduce the burden on trial participants as well as on accruing sites and retaining essential elements to ensure that the main goal of the trial can be accomplished can enhance enrollment without compromising the integrity of trials.

This cross-sectional study assesses differences in clinical trial participation among older vs younger adults with cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology address specific issues related to the management of cancer in older adults, including screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), assessing the risks and benefits of treatment, preventing or decreasing complications from therapy, and managing patients deemed to be at high risk for treatment-related toxicity. CGA is a multidisciplinary, in-depth evaluation that assesses the objective health of the older adult while evaluating multiple domains, which may affect cancer prognosis and treatment choices. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines providing specific practical framework for the use of CGA when evaluating older adults with cancer.

This editorial comments on the article by Siddique et al .

PURPOSE This study determined whether an electronic version of the geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional, diverse setting. METHODs Ten sites within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology participated. Patients who had active cancer or a history of cancer and were 65 years of age or older were eligible. The geriatric assessment was completed with an electronic data capture system that had been loaded onto iPads. Feasibility was defined a priori as completion in at least 70% of patients either with or without help. To enhance racial diversity, the original sample size was later changed and augmented by 50% with the intention of increasing enrollment of older minority patients. RESULTS A total of one hundred fifty-four patients were registered with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-91 years). Forty-three (28%) identified themselves as African American or Black. One hundred forty-one patients (92%) completed the electronic geriatric assessment. Feasibility was observed across all subgroups, regardless of race, education, performance status, comorbidities, and cognition; 124 patients (81%) completed the geriatric assessment without help. Reasons for not completing the geriatric assessment are as follows: clinic visit did not occur (n = 6), no iPad connection to the Internet (n = 3), patient declined (n = 2), prolonged hospitalization (n = 1), and patient died (n = 1). Reasons for needing help, as reported by study personnel, were as follows: the patient preferred that research personnel ask the questions (n = 9), vision problem (n = 3), lack of comfort with the iPad (n = 2), questions were not clear (n = 1), less proficient in English (n = 1), and challenge in pressing the green button to go to the next question (n = 1). CONCLUSION The electronic geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional setting that includes a notable proportion of African American or Black patients.

Abstract Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence‐based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real‐world data.

Abstract Background Less than 3% of older patients with cancer are enrolled in clinical trials. To reverse this underrepresentation, we compared older patients enrolled with older-patient-specific trials, defined as those designed for older patients with cancer, with those enrolled in age-unspecified trials. Materials and Methods We focused on individual patient data from those ≥65 years (younger patients excluded) and included all Alliance phase III adjuvant breast cancer trials from 1985–2012. Results Among 2,277 patients, 1,014 had been enrolled to older-patient-specific and 1,263 to age-unspecified trials. The median age (range) in the older-patient-specific trials was 72 (65–89) years compared with 68 (65–84) years in the cohort of older patients in age-unspecified trials; p < .0001. A greater percentage of patients 75 years or older had enrolled in older-patient-specific trials compared with the cohort of age-unspecified trials: 26% versus 6% (p < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9–13.7) and 13.5 years (95% CI, 12.9–14.1) for older-patient-specific and age-unspecified trials, respectively. OS was comparable (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92–1.28; p = .34; referent: age-unspecified trials), after adjusting for age, estrogen receptor status, tumor size, and lymph node status. Similar findings were reached for recurrence-free survival. A lower rate of grade 3–5 adverse events (hematologic and nonhematologic) was reported in older-patient-specific trials (43% vs. 58%; p < .0001). Sensitivity analysis with chemotherapy only trials and subset analysis, adjusted for performance score, yielded similar OS results. Conclusion Older-patient-specific trials appear to address this underrepresentation of older patients with ostensibly comparable outcomes. Clinical trial identification numbers. NCT00003088 (CALGB 9741); NCT00024102 (CALGB 49907); NCT00068601 (CALGB 40401); NCT00005970 (NCCTG N9831)