Cancer-related cognitive impairment is an important problem for patients with breast cancer, yet its trajectory is not fully understood. Some previous cancer-related cognitive impairment research is limited by heterogeneous populations, small samples, lack of prechemotherapy and longitudinal assessments, use of normative data, and lack of generalizability. We addressed these limitations in a large prospective, longitudinal, nationwide study. Patients and MethodsPatients with breast cancer from community oncology clinics and age-matched noncancer controls completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) at prechemotherapy and postchemotherapy and at a 6-month follow-up as an a priori exploratory aim. Longitudinal models compared FACT-Cog scores between patients and controls at the three assessments and adjusted for age, education, race, menopausal status, and baseline reading ability, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. A minimal clinically important difference cutoff determined percentages of impairment over time. ResultsOf patients, 581 patients with breast cancer (mean age, 53 years; 48% anthracycline-based regimens) and 364 controls (mean age, 53 years) were assessed. Patients reported significantly greater cognitive difficulties on the FACT-Cog total score and four subscales from prechemotherapy to postchemotherapy compared with controls as well as from prechemotherapy to 6-month follow-up (all P , .001). Increased baseline anxiety, depression, and decreased cognitive reserve were significantly associated with lower FACT-Cog total scores. Treatment regimen, hormone, or radiation therapy was not significantly associated with FACT-Cog total scores in patients from postchemotherapy to 6-month follow-up. Patients were more likely to report a clinically significant decline in self-reported cognitive function than were controls from prechemotherapy to postchemotherapy (45.2% v 10.4%) and from prechemotherapy to 6-month follow-up (36.5% v 13.6%). ConclusionPatients with breast cancer who were treated in community oncology clinics report substantially more cognitive difficulties up to 6 months after treatment with chemotherapy than do age-matched noncancer controls.

No abstract

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a subcommittee to develop recommendations on improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer in response to a critical need identified by the Institute of Medicine. Older adults experience the majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths and make up the majority of cancer survivors. Older adults are also the fastest growing segment of the US population. However, the evidence base for treating this population is sparse, because older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials, and trials designed specifically for older adults are rare. The result is that clinicians have less evidence on how to treat older adults, who represent the majority of patients with cancer. Clinicians and patients are forced to extrapolate from trials conducted in younger, healthier populations when developing treatment plans. This has created a dearth of knowledge regarding the risk of toxicity in the average older patient and about key end points of importance to older adults. ASCO makes five recommendations to improve evidence generation in this population: (1) Use clinical trials to improve the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer, (2) leverage research designs and infrastructure for generating evidence on older adults with cancer, (3) increase US Food and Drug Administration authority to incentivize and require research involving older adults with cancer, (4) increase clinicians' recruitment of older adults with cancer to clinical trials, and (5) use journal policies to improve researchers' reporting on the age distribution and health risk profiles of research participants.

Background Structured care processes that provide a framework for how oncologists can incorporate geriatric assessment (GA) into clinical practice could improve outcomes for vulnerable older adults with cancer, a growing population at high risk of toxicity from cancer treatment. We sought to obtain consensus from an expert panel on the use of GA in clinical practice and to develop algorithms of GA-guided care processes. Methods The Delphi technique, a well-recognized structured and reiterative process to reach consensus, was used. Participants were geriatric oncology experts who attended NIH-funded U13 or Cancer and Aging Research Group conferences. Consensus was defined as an interquartile range of ≤2 units, or ≥66.7%, selecting a utility/helpfulness rating of ≥7 on a 10-point Likert scale. For nominal data, consensus was defined as agreement among ≥66.7% of the group. Results From 33 invited, 30 participants completed all three rounds. The majority of experts (75%) used GA in clinical care, and the rest were involved in geriatric oncology research. The panel met consensus that “all patients aged ≥75 years and those who are younger with age-related health concerns” should undergo GA and all domains (function, physical performance, comorbidity/polypharmacy, cognition, nutrition, psychological status, and social support) should be included. Consensus was met for how GA could guide non-oncologic interventions and cancer treatment decisions. Algorithms for GA-guided care processes were developed. Conclusion This Delphi investigation of geriatric oncology experts demonstrated that GA should be performed for older patients with cancer to guide care processes.