Nutritional status and outcomes of older versus younger patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC).

Authors

Namrata Vijayvergia

Namrata Vijayvergia

Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA

Namrata Vijayvergia , Jenny Y Seo , Karthik Devarajan , Crystal Shereen Denlinger , Steven J. Cohen , Efrat Dotan

Organizations

Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: Older mPC pts are less likely to receive chemotherapy (Ctx) and receive fewer agents compared to younger pts, yet have similar overall survival (OS). Both obesity and malnutrition are linked with poorer outcomes in pancreatic cancer. We evaluated the effect of body mass index (BMI) and nutritional state on survival in < 65 y (GpA) and > 65 y (GpB) mPC pts. Methods: With IRB approval, we retrospectively analyzed charts of 579 mPC pts treated between 2000 and 2010. GpA and GpB were compared based on BMI alone (<19, 20-25 and >25) and also their nutritional status (poor: albumin <3 or weight loss>15% during disease course with any BMI; good: Alb>3.5 + Wt loss<15% + BMI >20; intermediate: all others). Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze OS and Fisher’s exact test to compare categorical variables. Results: There were 299 pts in GpA (median age 57yr) and 280 pts in GpB (median age 73 yr). Information on BMI/albumin was missing for 126 pts; total study population was 454 (GpA 238, GpB 216).Groups were well balanced for gender (majority male), PS (majority ≤1), initial stage (majority IV), and primary site (majority head). There was no significant difference in Ctx and number of agents used between the 3 subgroups across GpA and GpB. BMI alone did not affect survival in both groups. Nutritional status was significantly associated with survival when evaluating the whole population and GpA, but not GpB (Table). Good nutrition GpA pts had a lower relative risk of death versus pts in intermediate and poor nutrition groups (RR 0.83, CI 0.71-0.96, p=0.02). Good nutritional status was associated with better survival in GpA on multivariate analysis (RR=0.81, CI 0.69-0.95; p=0.008,), but not in GpB. Conclusions: Nutritional status (defined by BMI, albumin and weight loss) was associated with survival in younger mPC pts but not in older pts. Greater attention to nutrition and cancer cachexia with possible interventions throughout treatment may improve survival in mPC pts undergoing chemotherapy, especially those < 65 yrs. Table

Good
Intermediate
Poor
p value
NOSNOSNOS
All pts1567m1325m1664m< 0.05
Gp A (< 65 y)798m736m864m< 0.05
Gp B (> 65 y)776m595m803mNS

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2016 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B: Cancers of the Pancreas, Small Bowel, and Hepatobiliary Tract

Track

Cancers of the Pancreas, Small Bowel, and Hepatobiliary Tract

Sub Track

Multidisciplinary Treatment

Citation

J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl 4S; abstr 386)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2016.34.4_suppl.386

Abstract #

386

Poster Bd #

K2

Abstract Disclosures