Are Older Patients with Cervical Cancer Managed Differently to Younger Patients? An International Survey.
cervical cancer
chemotherapy
oncogeriatrics
radiotherapy
surgery
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Dec 2019
06 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
03
11
2019
revised:
01
12
2019
accepted:
03
12
2019
entrez:
11
12
2019
pubmed:
11
12
2019
medline:
11
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although a quarter of cervical cancers occur after the age of 65 years, there is no treatment consensus for these patients. The aim of this work was to survey how physicians treat patients with advanced cervical cancer, focusing on treatment adjustments according to age and frailty status. Specialists were invited to an online survey. Data collected included information on respondent and treatment strategy in four cases (FIGO IIb, FIGO IVa, FIGO IVb, metastatic recurrence) with three age scenarios (45-year-old, 75-year-old and fit, 75-year-old and unfit). We received 237 responses of which 117 were fully completed. Thirty-four percent of respondents reported they had available access to a geriatric team and 25% used a frailty screening tool in routine. Therapeutic strategies did not differ between young and old fit patients. However, treatment modalities and intensity were different for old and unfit patients. Physicians answered that they would treat old fit patients as their younger counterparts but would reduce treatment intensity for old unfit patients. However, even if they were willing to adapt their treatment strategy based on frailty status, most of them do not use the tools that would allow distinguishing "fit" and "unfit" older patients, leaving room for improving accurate geriatric evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31817566
pii: cancers11121955
doi: 10.3390/cancers11121955
pmc: PMC6966543
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Tumori. 2010 Nov-Dec;96(6):959-65
pubmed: 21388059
Cancer. 2012 Jul 15;118(14):3618-26
pubmed: 22038773
Br J Cancer. 2003 Jul 7;89(1):88-93
pubmed: 12838306
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008 Jan-Feb;18(1):95-103
pubmed: 17466049
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2595-603
pubmed: 25071125
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Feb;299(2):299-315
pubmed: 30542793
Radiother Oncol. 2017 May;123(2):306-311
pubmed: 28434797
Cancer. 2014 Jul 1;120(13):2032-8
pubmed: 24821088
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Sep;228:174-179
pubmed: 29960201
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 Sep;192:86-9
pubmed: 26182837
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 1;29(25):3457-65
pubmed: 21810685
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016 Dec;108:164-174
pubmed: 27931835
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb;46(2):111-5
pubmed: 26685320
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar;137(3):481-8
pubmed: 20473526
Updates Surg. 2017 Dec;69(4):441-449
pubmed: 28918603
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD008285
pubmed: 20091664
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv72-iv83
pubmed: 28881916
J Oncol Pract. 2018 Feb;14(2):85-94
pubmed: 29436306
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 29;179(3):245-52
pubmed: 18663204
Clin Interv Aging. 2013;8:783-8
pubmed: 23836968
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017 Mar;29(3):153-160
pubmed: 27838135
J Geriatr Oncol. 2017 Mar;8(2):108-116
pubmed: 28169196