Impact of the Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) chemotherapy toxicity (tox) risk score on the benefit of a geriatric assessment–driven intervention (GAIN) among older adults with cancer.

Authors

null

Christiana Crook

City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA

Christiana Crook, Can-Lan Sun, Heeyoung Kim, Enrique Soto Pérez de Celis, Vincent Chung, Marianna Koczywas, Marwan Fakih, Joseph Chao, Leana Cabrera Chien, Kemeberly Charles, Vani Katheria, Monica Trent, Elsa Roberts, Reena Jayani, Jeanine Moreno, Mina S. Sedrak, William Dale, Daneng Li

Organizations

City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Medicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

Research Funding

Other Foundation
UniHealth Foundation, U.S. National Institutes of Health, Center for Cancer and Aging, City of Hope.

Background: The CARG tox score can predict risk of chemotherapy-related tox in older adults with cancer. GAIN can reduce tox vs standard of care (SOC) among these patients (pts); GAIN’s impact across CARG risk groups is unknown. Methods: A secondary analysis of the GAIN randomized clinical trial (NCT02517034) of pts aged ≥65 (solid tumor diagnosis, starting a new chemotherapy) was performed. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive GAIN vs SOC and were categorized into low (0-5), medium (6-9), and high (10-20) risk groups according to CARG score. The primary outcome was incidence of grade 3-5 tox. Chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare outcomes (GAIN vs SOC, stratified by risk groups). Log-rank tests were used to compare 1-year survival across risk groups. Results: This analysis included 600 pts: 26.5% low risk, 45.2% medium risk, 28.3% high risk. Table shows pt/treatment characteristics. For pts with low/medium risk scores, GAIN demonstrated a 14.0% (95% CI 4.1%-23.9%) reduction in tox vs SOC (p = 0.006). No significant reduction in tox was observed among pts with high risk scores (p = 0.86). One-year survival (GAIN vs SOC) for each risk group was 73.6% vs 67.4% (low risk), 68.5% vs 64.5% (medium risk), and 57.3% vs 61.7% (high risk), respectively (log-rank p = 0.10). Conclusions: Older adults with low/medium, but not high, CARG risk scores benefit from GAIN. Additional strategies may be needed to improve outcomes for pts with high CARG risk scores. Clinical trial information: NCT02517034.

Patient/treatment characteristics (N = 600).

Low risk, GAIN

(n = 110)
Low risk, SOC

(n = 49)
Medium risk, GAIN

(n = 178)
Medium risk, SOC

(n = 93)
High risk, GAIN

(n = 110)
High risk, SOC

(n = 60)
Age, median (range)
68 (65-87)
70 (65-88)
70 (65-88)
71 (65-87)
71 (65-91)
74 (65-87)
Primary genitourinary cancer, n (%)
9 (8.18)
2 (4.08)
28 (15.73)
13 (13.98)
26 (23.64)
12 (20.00)
Primary breast cancer, n (%)
48 (43.64)
19 (38.78)
31 (17.42)
20 (21.51)
13 (11.82)
4 (6.67)
Primary gynecologic cancer, n (%)
18 (16.36)
9 (18.37)
12 (6.74)
7 (7.53)
5 (4.55)
3 (5.00)
Primary gastrointestinal cancer, n (%)
9 (8.18)
6 (12.24)
68 (38.20)
30 (32.26)
57 (51.82)
31 (51.67)
Primary lung cancer, n (%)
19 (17.27)
11 (22.45)
34 (19.10)
17 (18.28)
6 (5.45)
8 (13.33)
Other primary cancer, n (%)
7 (6.36)
2 (4.08)
5 (2.81)
6 (6.45)
3 (2.73)
2 (3.33)
Initial dose reduction, n (%)
42 (38.2)
18 (36.7)
58 (32.6)
40 (43.0)
47 (42.7)
28 (46.7)
Received poly-chemotherapy, n (%)
54 (49.1)
22 (44.9)
129 (72.5)
68 (73.1)
86 (78.2)
47 (78.3)

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

2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B

Track

Palliative and Supportive Care,Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care,Quality, Safety, and Implementation Science

Sub Track

Toxicity Prevention, Assessment, and Management

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02517034

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 28; abstr 235)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.28_suppl.235

Abstract #

235

Poster Bd #

C2

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Daneng Li

First Author: Dani E Gholam

First Author: Cristiane Decat Bergerot