Citations

Purpose Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin are commonly used to treat advanced and resected colorectal cancer. This analysis compares the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin administered bimonthly (FOLFOX4) in patients age younger than and at least 70 years. Patients and Methods This retrospective analysis included 3,742 colorectal cancer patients (614 age ≥ 70) from four clinical trials testing FOLFOX4 in the adjuvant, first-, and second-line settings. End points included grade ≥ 3 adverse events, response rate (in advanced disease), progression or relapse-free survival, dose-intensity, and overall survival in the studies with mature survival data. Results Grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicity (neutropenia [43% v 49%; P = .04] and thrombocytopenia [2% v 5%; P = .04]) were significantly higher in older patients. Older age was not associated with increased rates of severe neurologic adverse events, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, infection, overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity (63% v 67%; P = .15), or 60-day mortality (1.1% v 2.3%; P = .20). The relative benefit of FOLFOX4 versus control did not differ by age for response rate, progression or recurrence free-survival (hazard ratio, 0.70 for FOLFOX4 v control for age < 70, 0.65 for age ≥ 70; P = .42), or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.77 age < 70, 0.82 age ≥ 70; P = .79). Dose-intensity did not differ by age at cycles 1, 3, 6, or 12. Conclusion FOLFOX4 maintains its efficacy and safety ratio in selected elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Its judicious use should be considered without regard to patient age, although scant data are available among patients older than 80 years.

Background and Purpose— One in 3 individuals will experience a stroke, dementia or both. Moreover, twice as many individuals will have cognitive impairment short of dementia as either stroke or dementia. The commonly used stroke scales do not measure cognition, while dementia criteria focus on the late stages of cognitive impairment, and are heavily biased toward the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. No commonly agreed standards exist for identifying and describing individuals with cognitive impairment, particularly in the early stages, and especially with cognitive impairment related to vascular factors, or vascular cognitive impairment. Methods— The National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the Canadian Stroke Network (CSN) convened researchers in clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, neuropsychology, brain imaging, neuropathology, experimental models, biomarkers, genetics, and clinical trials to recommend minimum, common, clinical and research standards for the description and study of vascular cognitive impairment. Results— The results of these discussions are reported herein. Conclusions— The development of common standards represents a first step in a process of use, validation and refinement. Using the same standards will help identify individuals in the early stages of cognitive impairment, will make studies comparable, and by integrating knowledge, will accelerate the pace of progress.