Next Article in Journal
Gene Regulation Network Analysis on Human Prostate Orthografts Highlights a Potential Role for the JMJD6 Regulon in Clinical Prostate Cancer
Next Article in Special Issue
Targeting BTK Signaling in the Microenvironment of Solid Tumors as a Feasible Cancer Therapy Option
Previous Article in Journal
Advances in Targeting Cutaneous Melanoma
Previous Article in Special Issue
Functional Genetic Variants in ATG10 Are Associated with Acute Myeloid Leukemia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/cancers13092091
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Clinical Effectiveness of Oncological Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Is Independent of Comorbidities and Age

by
Dora Niedersüß-Beke
1,
Manuel Orlinger
2,
David Falch
1,
Cordula Heiler
1,
Gudrun Piringer
3,4,
Josef Thaler
3,
Wolfgang Hilbe
1,
Andreas Petzer
2 and
Holger Rumpold
4,5,*
1
Department of Internal Medicine I, Wilhelminenspital, 1160 Vienna, Austria
2
Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz, 4010 Linz, Austria
3
Department of Internal Medicine IV, Hospital Wels-Grieskirchen, 4600 Wels, Austria
4
Medical Faculty, Johannes Kepler University Linz, 4020 Linz, Austria
5
Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Ordensklinikum Linz, 4010 Linz, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(9), 2091; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092091
Submission received: 5 March 2021 / Revised: 20 April 2021 / Accepted: 22 April 2021 / Published: 26 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Paper from Journal Reviewers)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. As with many other cancers, the risk for CRC increases with age. This is also true for comorbidities, which may hamper sufficient treatment of the cancer. Due to restrictive inclusion criteria, older patients and patients with comorbidities are underrepresented in clinical trials. Comprehensive knowledge about modern effectiveness of oncological treatments in older and/or comorbid patients is sparse. Due to the lack of clinical trials, this issue is investigated in real-life settings predominantly. In our retrospective study we show that patients benefit from oncological treatments irrespective of comorbidities, measured by the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbity (aaCCI) index, and age. Differences found in treatment outcomes are marginal and are likely due to less intense treatment of comorbid or elderly patients. Balancing risk and benefit for treatment decisions should take potential under-treatment of comorbid and older patients into account.

Abstract

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of oncological treatments in metastatic CRC related to comorbidities and age. This retrospective study included 1105 patients from three oncological centers. aaCCI and CCI was available from 577 patients. An aaCCI > 3 was of the highest predictive value compared to other aaCCI-levels, CCI or age (p < 0.001 for all). Treatment (best supportive care (BSC), systemic treatment only (STO) and resection of metastases (ROM)) significantly prolonged survival in patients with aaCCI > 3 (STO: HR 0.39, CI 0.29–0.51; ROM: HR 0.16, CI 0.10–0.24) and patients older than 70 years (STO: HR 0.56, CI 0.47–0.66; ROM: HR 0.23, 0.18–0.30). Median overall survival was shorter in patients with aaCCI or age > 70 years and interaction for treatment type not significant for aaCCI, but significant for age older or younger than 70 years (STO: p = 0.01; ROM p = 0.02). BSC is more often considered as optimal care for patients with an aaCCI > 3 (37.6% vs. 12.4%; p < 0.001) or age > 70 years (35.7% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001). Older patients or patients with comorbidities benefit from cancer-specific therapy independently of their age and comorbidities.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide [1]. The incidence of CRC increases with age, which is true for comorbidities as well [2,3]. Elderly patients and patients with a higher number of comorbidities are often under-represented in clinical cancer trials, although they represent the largest group of the real-life CRC patients’ collective [4,5,6]. With the advent of modern oncological treatments, a striking improvement of overall survival (OS) in metastatic CRC (mCRC), reaching around 30 months, has been achieved over the last centuries [7,8]. This number, however, reflects a specific patient population within clinical trials, which select patients with specific prognostically relevant markers [9,10]. In real-life this number is an overestimation and not seen [11,12,13,14]. The increased OS is reported for elderly patients as well, but with much lower evidence [12,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Finding the optimal cancer treatment in the elderly is difficult, partly due to the underrepresentation of these patients in clinical trials [21,22]. Most studies addressing this clinical outcome in a frail population use age as a predictor. Results are contradictive as several studies show the same benefit and similar toxicity from chemotherapy regardless of age [23,24,25,26]. In contrast, a large analysis from the Aide et Recherché en Cancerologie Digestive group reports that the risk of death was significantly lower in younger than in older patients, which can be interpreted to signify that older patients do not gain the same benefit of treatment as younger ones do [27].
Age alone might not be the optimal predictor of clinical outcomes. Additional considerations such as comorbidities are of importance as several trials have shown that pretreatment comorbidity status is an independent predictor of OS in several tumor entities [28,29]. For surgical interventions in mCRC, the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification has been shown to be useful for patient selection [30,31]. The more broadly applicable Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) is a reliable tool to estimate prognosis based on type and number of comorbidities. This index has been tested in several cancer entities [32,33,34]. Age has been incorporated into the CCI, resulting in a more informative age adjusted CCI (aaCCI) [35]. However, CCI or aaCCI are not widely used in clinical practice or clinical trials.
Older patients or patients with comorbidities are often undertreated in the real-world setting due to the lack of comprehensive data on treatment outcomes, the reluctance of physicians to treat and the different value older patients place on having a few months longer to live. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of modern oncological treatments (systemic treatment alone, resection of metastases with or without systemic treatment compared to patients receiving best supportive care (BSC)) using aaCCI or age as predictors of OS in a real-life patient population. Analyzing a possible interaction between treatment and aaCCI, as well as treatment and age, provides a basis for determining whether the effects of different treatment approaches are dependent on comorbidities and age.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Population

We retrospectively identified patients diagnosed with localized or metastatic CRC of any histology treated at three different oncological centers from January 2005 to December 2020. Clinical data were obtained by searching two prospective cancer registries (Ordensklinikum Linz and Klinikum Wels-Griesskirchen) or by chart review (Wilhelminenspital Vienna). Patients were eligible for inclusion if they suffered from metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma (synchronous or metachronous metastasized) and if their first metastasis was diagnosed before 31 December 2019. Metachronous disease was defined by an interval longer than 6 months from first diagnosis and diagnosis of the first metastase. Metastases were diagnosed by comptuertomography. Left sided colorectal cancer was defined as those originating from splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, as well as the rectum. Right sided colon cancer included the coecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure and colon transversum. End of disease was defined by either death or last follow-up of the patient. The last follow-up for the analyzed cohort was 15 January 2021. Information on CCI or aaCCI was obtained retrospectively for patients treated at two centers (Ordenksklinikum Linz, Wilhelminenspital Vienna).

2.2. Statistical Analysis

The endpoint of this study was OS defined as the time between first diagnosis of metastatic disease and death. Kaplan–Meier-estimates and curves were used as descriptive measures for survival data; the reverse Kaplan–Meier method was used for calculation of median follow-up time. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to investigate the effects of different CCI or aaCCI-categories on survival. The assumptions of Cox regression were checked for with appropriate methods. Outliers and influential cases were deleted for all analyses after identification by sample size-dependent cutoff and graphical check for deviance (R function ggcoxdiagnostics) according to Patterson et al. [36]. Different Cox models were compared by chi-squared-test to find the CCI or aaCCI categorization with the strongest association. Predictors with the lowest p-value and the highest likelihood-ratio within the CCI and aaCCI groups were chosen for comparison by chi-squared-test to identify the model with the highest predictive power. Interaction effects of aaCCI ≤ 3 or higher and treatment groups, as well as age ≤ 70 years or above and treatment groups, were analyzed to investigate if treatment had a different effect on survival dependent on aaCCI category or age. This was done in a model including the whole dataset including all treatment groups. In addition, Cox models were performed on sub datasets by age group or aaCCI category with treatment as the predictor. A comparison of 90% confidence intervals of the hazard ratios was used for a more precise interpretation of the interaction results in these subgroups. Absolute and relative frequencies were reported for categorical variables and median and IQR for continuous variables. Cross tabulation and Fishers Exact tests were used to investigate the differences of categorical parameters between aaCCI- and CCI-categories and age groups. For all analyses, the R version 3.6.3 (R core Team, 2020) was used with the survival (survival analyses, Kaplan–Meier-analyses, cox-regression, diagnostics), survminer (survival-curves, diagnostics) and tableone (tables, frequencies). A significance level of 5% was assumed in all analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Patients

A total of 3417 patients with CRC were identified in the databases of the three participating cancer centers. From these, 69 were excluded due to a histology other than adenocarcinoma; 1904 were excluded because of localized stage; 16 were excluded due to an incomplete dataset; 21 were excluded due to a second cancer, and 302 were excluded because the metastatic disease was diagnosed after 31 December 2019. This resulted in 1105 patients diagnosed with mCRC and treated at the participating centers from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2019 and included in the analysis (Figure 1). Median age was 69 years, 37.4% were female, 62.6% were male. Most of the patients received systemic treatment alone (53.4%), followed by multimodal treatment by resection of metastases with or without systemic treatment (24.4%). A proportion of 22.2% of the patients were not treated at all. First line treatment was given to 69% of the patients, second line to 44.5%, and third line or more to 25.9%. Most of the patients had a left sided CRC (81.9%), located in the colon (64.3%). Furthermore, 69.8% of the patients suffered from synchronous disease. At diagnosis of metastatic disease, either synchronous or metachronous, 70.8% of the patients showed single organ metastasis. Mutational status of RAS was available in 79.5% of patients. For BRAF mutational status was available in only 36.7% of the patients (Table 1). From 577 patients, CCI and aaCCI were available. From these 63% had a CCI of 0, and 65.3% of the patients had an aaCCI of ≤3. Median follow-up time was 75.95 months (IQR 41.46; 107.13) for the whole population.

3.2. Prognostic Value of CCI and aaCCI

The highest predictive value for CCI was obtained for patients with CCI zero compared to patients with a CCI greater than zero (CCI-0; HR 1.49; CI 1.27–1.75). An aaCCI ≤ 3 or above (aaCCI-3) showed the highest predictive value when aaCCI was used as the predictor (HR 1.82; CI 1.54–2.14). The model with aaCCI-3 as the predictor showed a significantly better fit than the model with CCI-0 as the predictor (log likelihood = −2431.1 vs. −2421.7, 2(0) = 18.82, p < 0.001). Therefore, the model with aaCCI-3 as the predictor in terms of comorbidity was used for further analyses.

3.3. Treatment Outcomes According to Comorbidities and Age

In the overall population, treatments including resection of metastases were the most effective therapy (HR 0.16; CI 0.13–0.20), followed by systemic treatment alone (HR 0.45; CI 0.38–0.52) compared to BSC. These effects were observed independently of comorbidities and age. Patients with an aaCCI > 3 showed a benefit from resection (HR 0.16; CI 0.10–0.24) or systemic treatment alone (HR 0.39; CI 0.29–0.51) compared to the respective BSC group. Similar treatment benefits were observed for patients older than 70 years for multimodal treatment including resection of metastasis (HR 0.23; CI 0.18–0.30) or systemic treatment only (HR 0.56; CI 0.47–0.66). These treatment benefits were more pronounced in patients with an aaCCI of ≤3 (HR for resection of metastasis 0.12; CI 0.08–0.17; HR for systemic therapy alone 0.3; CI 0.22–0.39). However, these outcome differences did not show a significant interaction between treatment group and aaCCI (p = 0.52 for resection of metastasis; p = 0.29 for systemic treatment alone). Yet, interaction did gain significance between treatment group and younger or older than 70 years of age (p = 0.02 for resection of metastasis; p = 0.01 for systemic treatment alone). Results are visualized in Figure 2A,B; HR and 90% CI’s for visualizing interaction are given in Table 2; a detailed view on the interaction analysis rendering p-values for interaction is given in Appendix A (Table A1).

3.4. Treatment Differences in Comorbid and Elderly Patients

Patients with an aaCCI > 3 were significantly more often considered for BSC (37.6% vs. 12.4%; p < 0.001). If treated, patients with an aaCCI > 3 were less often treated multimodally by metastasis resection and systemic treatment (9.6% vs. 24.9%; p > 0.001). The rate of patients in the aaCCI > 3 group receiving one treatment line only was similar to patients with an aaCCI ≤ 3 (28.9% vs. 29.2%; p = 1.000). However, the rate of patients receiving two lines of treatment dropped significantly in the aaCCI > 3 group (11.7% vs. 26.5%; p < 0.001). Consecutively, less patients with an aaCCI > 3 received three or more treatment lines (11.7 vs. 26.5%; p = 0.001). The reduction in treatment intensity occurred between the applications from first line to second line treatment. Out of all patients receiving first line treatment, a significantly lower proportion of patients with aaCCI > 3 received second line treatment (46.2% vs. 63.6%; p = 0.002). In contrast, the rate of patients receiving a third line or more of therapy was similar in both aaCCI groups (aaCCI > 3 54% vs. aaCCI ≤ 3 48.1%; p = 0.526). Similar results were obtained in patients younger or older than 70 years. Patients > 70 years were more often considered for BSC (35.7% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001). If patients > 70 years received treatment, they were less frequently treated by multimodal treatment (9.6% vs. 24.9%; p < 0.001). Metastasis resection alone was comparable between the two age groups (≤70 years 9.5% vs. 7.9%; p = 0.339). Moreover, the rate of patients receiving at least one line of systemic treatment was comparable between the two age groups (≤70 years 23.3% vs. 26.6%; p = 0.208). Two treatment lines were administered significantly less often in patients >70 years (13.3% vs. 23.0%; p < 0.001), which continued in that there was a lower frequency of third line treatment or more in this group (16.5% vs. 33.0%; p < 0.001). This reduction in systemic treatment intensity again takes place between first and second line treatment. Out of all patients receiving first line treatment, a significantly lower proportion of patients received a second line therapy (52.9% vs. 70.6%; p < 0.001). In contrast, a similar proportion of patients received third line treatment after second line treatment was given (55.4% vs. 59.0%; p = 0.486). Results are summarized in Table 3.

4. Discussion

The main finding of our study is that older patients or patients with comorbid conditions benefit from cancer specific therapy independently of their age and comorbidities. Our data show that even in a real-life setting first-line systemic therapy, resection of the primary tumor and the elimination of metastases considerably prolong survival in these vulnerable patient populations.
Morishima and colleagues found in a large retrospective analysis of more than 2600 patients with colorectal, lung and gastric cancer that comorbidities should receive more attention for risk adjustment [37]. In line with previous data, our study confirms that apart from age, comorbidities have a high relevance as a prognostic tool in patients with metastatic CRC [28,38]. In our study aaCCI had a higher predictive value than CCI, which focuses on comorbidities not including age. Differences for aaCCI and CCI are known for several cancers, including localized CRC, but this has been not evaluated in mCRC [37,39].
However, our data also indicate that comorbid and older patients still benefit considerably from systemic and local treatments and that the putative negative effect of comorbidities on treatment toxicities needs to be weighed carefully against the expected benefit of cancer therapy. Our findings are interesting since—based on recommendations to withhold aggressive treatments in comorbid patients [28]—elderly patients with comorbidities are often treated less aggressively and thus have a worse survival than those with no concomitant diseases [33]. In contrast, our data in a real-world setting show that CRC patients should not be denied effective treatment options simply based on their comorbidities. This is even true for a more elderly patient subset.
It is difficult to prove an interaction between comorbidities or age and oncological treatment. We could not find an interaction for aaCCI and oncological treatment but did find an interaction between age (older or younger than 70 years) and oncological treatment, which, however, was barely significant (p = 0.02 for resection of metastasis; p = 0.01 for systemic treatment alone). If age is used as a metric variable, significance cannot be reached. Differences in survival between frail and not frail patients in our data set are more likely due to less intense treatment of patients with an aaCCI > 3 and patients older than 70 years. This is because older or comorbid patients were significantly less often treated by intensive therapy and received significantly less systemic treatment lines (Table 3). Furthermore, RAS analysis as a decision criterion for treatment decision was more often performed in younger and not frail patients. This was accompanied by a significantly less frequent use of monoclonal antibodies in these patient populations. Our findings are comparable to the results of the retrospective DISCO-study showing that older patients receive less aggressive treatment and, if treated, have a higher probability of receiving monotherapy instead of combination chemotherapy or additional monoclonal antibodies [40]. Interestingly, other parameters like the distribution of CCI and the frequency of KRAS/RAS analyses between the DISCO-study and our larger population are comparable, which underlines the reliability of our dataset.
The reason why intensive treatments have been withheld from multimorbid and elderly patients with metastatic CRC might be that the evidence supporting the feasibility of these therapies, including radical surgery of the primary tumor and eradication of metastases, has been limited so far [17,18,20]. In addition, findings from the adjuvant setting suggest that in the early stage of the disease, comorbidities have a higher impact on life expectancy than the tumor itself [41,42]. This might be different in the advanced setting. For example, Boakye et al., while confirming the importance of comorbidities in the adjuvant setting, recently stated that comorbidities become less important in the advanced setting with respect to overall prognosis [43]. This underlines the importance of optimally treating the leading cause of mortality, the cancer itself, even in an elderly or multimorbid population. In addition, we did not observe a difference in survival of patients receiving BSC. This speaks against a more indolent biological course of the disease in older patients, which is a commonly shared opinion among clinicians based on differences in biological features [44,45]. Thus, it is important to offer effective treatments to multimorbid and elderly patients. Focusing on the optimization of comorbid conditions is a key issue in these cases. Preliminary data show that the probability of completing a planned systemic treatment is higher if comorbidities are extensively managed and can potentially be increased by interdisciplinary care consisting of oncologists working together with geriatricians [46,47].
Age is a common criterion used for treatment decisions including intensity of treatment. In the literature, the definition of young and older patients is commonly done by using 70 years and over as a cut-off for older patients [40]. We show that predicting survival by either aaCCI or age older or younger than 70 years have almost the same predictive value in terms of median OS (Figure 1 and Table 2), which makes age an easy proxy tool to support decision making in clinical practice in terms of considering additional care for comorbid conditions. To our knowledge, such a comparison has not been reported yet.
In conclusion, our data confirm the significant role of age and comorbidities on the outcome of patients with mCRC and also show that intensive treatment approaches have a similar clinical effectiveness compared to younger or non-comorbid patients. This implies that tumor biology in terms of the natural course and sensitivity to treatment is similar in different patient groups. Modern oncology provides a wide range of treatments to tailor treatment according to patient specific conditions like comorbidities. This is, however, challenging. Yet, our study shows that treatment decisions in older patients or patients with comorbidities should be similar to that of other patients, namely focusing on tumor-specific factors such as stage, histology, tumor sidedness and other prognostic markers. Awareness needs to be raised in clinical oncology work that the effectiveness of treatment is just as high in patients of advanced age or those with comorbidities, and thus extensive management of these patient groups is mandatory.
Several potential limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of our study. Foremost, it is an explorative study, which implies the risk of selection and information bias. This is especially important considering CCI and aaCCI, both of which were obtained in a retrospective manner. However, the frequency of CCI is very consistent with the literature, thus limiting the risk of implausibility. Furthermore, granting an equal distribution of the high number of prognostic factors (e.g., location of primary, number of metastatic sites, synchronous/metachronous, etc.) known for colorectal cancer is difficult in this setting. We further do not have sufficient data of treatment details such as dose of substances or intervals between the treatments and therefore cannot report on these. The parameters reported were obtained prospectively and monitored through cancer registries. However, as these are real-world data outside a clinical protocol, disease dynamics like disease progression cannot be assessed reliably. We chose OS as a reliable endpoint in order to reduce such biases. However, the strengths of our study is that such information is scare in the literature and of high clinical relevance to provide the translation of progress in oncology into daily practice.

5. Conclusions

In our findings, effectiveness of oncological treatment in mCRC appears to be independent of aaCCI or age. Differences found in treatment outcomes are marginal and are likely due to less intense treatment of comorbid or elderly patients. We therefore consider that balancing risk and benefit for treatment decisions should take possible under-treatment of comorbid and older patients into account and recommend the management of comorbidities accompanying the underlying malignant disease.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: H.R., D.N.-B. methodology: H.R. software: H.R. validation: H.R., W.H., A.P., J.T. formal analysis: H.R. investigations: H.R., D.N.-B. resources: H.R. date curation: D.N.-B., D.F., M.O., C.H., J.T., G.P., H.R. writing—original draft preparation: D.N.-B., H.R. writing—review and editing: M.O., J.T., A.P., M.O., G.P., W.H. visualization: H.R. supervision: H.R. funding acquisition: na. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This retrospective analysis was approved by the Ethics Committee of Oberoesterreich (Upper Austria) (Ethics Committee Oberoesterreich, 1002/2020, 12 February 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective analysis of data obtained during clinical routine care.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank D. Zauner, M. Pötscher and F. Knotz for their support with data management.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Cox Regressions including interaction terms age and treatment modalities and aaCCI and treatment modalities, respectively.
Table A1. Cox Regressions including interaction terms age and treatment modalities and aaCCI and treatment modalities, respectively.
Effects for AgeHRzCI 95%p
Age > 70 years0.91−0.62(0.68–1.22)0.53
Effect of resection of metastases0.13−12.39(0.09–0.18)0.00
Effect of systemic treatment only0.36−7.25(0.27–0.47)0.00
Resection of metastases in age > 70 years1.682.32(1.08–2.61)0.02
Sysystemic treatment only in age > 701.582.57(1.11–2.23)0.01
Effects for aaCCI
aaCCI 4–91.160.74(0.79–1.70)0.46
Effect of resection of metastases0.11−10.48(0.07–0.17)0.00
Effect of systemic treatment only0.28−7.19(0.20–0.39)0.00
Resection of metastases in aaCCI 4–91.220.64(0.81–2.08)0.52
Sysystemic treatment only in aaCCI 4–91.291.07(0.68–1.22)0.29
HR—Hazard Ratio; z test statistic, CI—Confidence interval; p—p-value.

References

  1. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Jørgensen, T.L.; Hallas, J.; Friis, S.; Herrstedt, J. Comorbidity in elderly cancer patients in relation to overall and cancer-specific mortality. Br. J. Cancer 2012, 106, 1353–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Yancik, R.; Havlik, R.J.; Wesley, M.N.; Ries, L.; Long, S.; Rossi, W.K.; Edwards, B.K. Cancer and comorbidity in older patients: A descriptive profile. Ann. Epidemiol. 1996, 6, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lewis, J.H.; Kilgore, M.L.; Goldman, D.P.; Trimble, E.L.; Kaplan, R.; Montello, M.J.; Housman, M.G.; Escarce, J.J. Participation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003, 21, 1383–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hutchins, L.F.; Unger, J.M.; Crowley, J.J.; Coltman, C.A.; Albain, K.S. Underrepresentation of Patients 65 Years of Age or Older in Cancer-Treatment Trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 341, 2061–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zulman, D.M.; Sussman, J.B.; Chen, X.; Cigolle, C.T.; Blaum, C.S.; Hayward, R.A. Examining the evidence: A systematic review of the inclusion and analysis of older adults in randomized controlled trials. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2011, 26, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Cremolini, C.; Schirripa, M.; Antoniotti, C.; Moretto, R.; Salvatore, L.; Masi, G.; Falcone, A.; Loupakis, F. First-line chemotherapy for mCRC-a review and evidence-based algorithm. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 12, 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Van Cutsem, E.; Cervantes, A.; Adam, R.; Sobrero, A.; Van Krieken, J.H.; Aderka, D.; Aranda Aguilar, E.; Bardelli, A.; Benson, A.; Bodoky, G.; et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 1386–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heinemann, V.; von Weikersthal, L.F.; Decker, T.; Kiani, A.; Vehling-Kaiser, U.; Al-Batran, S.-E.; Heintges, T.; Lerchenmüller, C.; Kahl, C.; Seipelt, G.; et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 1065–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Venook, A.P.; Niedzwiecki, D.; Lenz, H.J.; Innocenti, F.; Fruth, B.; Meyerhardt, J.A.; Schrag, D.; Greene, C.; O’Neil, B.H.; Atkins, J.N.; et al. Effect of first-line chemotherapy combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab on overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017, 317, 2392–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Sorbye, H.; Pfeiffer, P.; Cavalli-Björkman, N.; Qvortrup, C.; Holsen, M.H.; Wentzel-Larsen, T.; Glimelius, B. Clinical trial enrollment, patient characteristics, and survival differences in prospectively registered metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Cancer 2009, 15, 1065–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Doat, S.; Thiébaut, A.; Samson, S.; Ricordeau, P.; Guillemot, D.; Mitry, E. Elderly patients with colorectal cancer: Treatment modalities and survival in France. National data from the ThInDiT cohort study. Eur. J. Cancer 2014, 50, 1276–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Razenberg, L.G.E.M.; Creemers, G.J.; Beerepoot, L.V.; Vos, A.H.; van de Wouw, A.J.; Maas, H.A.A.M.; Lemmens, V.E.P.P. Age-related systemic treatment and survival of patients with metachronous metastases from colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol. 2016, 55, 1443–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Tomita, Y.; Karapetis, C.S.; Ullah, S.; Townsend, A.R.; Roder, D.; Beeke, C.; Roy, A.C.; Padbury, R.; Price, T.J. Survival improvements associated with access to biological agents: Results from the South Australian (SA) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) registry. Acta Oncol. 2016, 55, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Van Erning, F.N.; Van Steenbergen, L.N.; Lemmens, V.E.P.P.; Rutten, H.J.T.; Martijn, H.; Van Spronsen, D.J.; Janssen-Heijnen, M.L.G. Conditional survival for long-term colorectal cancer survivors in the Netherlands: Who do best? Eur. J. Cancer 2014, 50, 1731–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fuchs, C.S.; Moore, M.R.; Harker, G.; Villa, L.; Rinaldi, D.; Hecht, J.R. Phase III comparison of two irinotecan dosing regimens in second-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003, 21, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Figer, A.; Perez-Staub, N.; Carola, E.; Tournigand, C.; Lledo, G.; Flesch, M.; Barcelo, R.; Cervantes, A.; André, T.; Colin, P.; et al. FOLFOX in patients aged between 76 and 80 years with metastatic colorectal cancer: An exploratory cohort of the OPTIMOX1 study. Cancer 2007, 110, 2666–2671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kozloff, M.F.; Berlin, J.; Flynn, P.J.; Kabbinavar, F.; Ashby, M.; Dong, W.; Sing, A.P.; Grothey, A. Clinical outcomes in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab and chemotherapy: Results from the BRiTE observational cohort study. Oncology 2010, 78, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cunningham, D.; Lang, I.; Marcuello, E.; Lorusso, V.; Ocvirk, J.; Shin, D.B.; Jonker, D.; Osborne, S.; Andre, N.; Waterkamp, D.; et al. Bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (AVEX): An open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sastre, J.; Grávalos, C.; Rivera, F.; Massuti, B.; Valladares-Ayerbes, M.; Marcuello, E.; Manzano, J.L.; Benavides, M.; Hidalgo, M.; Díaz-Rubio, E.; et al. First-Line Cetuximab Plus Capecitabine in Elderly Patients with Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Outcome and Subgroup Analysis According to KRAS Status from a Spanish TTD Group Study. Oncologist 2012, 17, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Papamichael, D.; Audisio, R.A.; Glimelius, B.; de Gramont, A.; Glynne-Jones, R.; Haller, D.; Köhne, C.H.; Rostoft, S.; Lemmens, V.; Mitry, E.; et al. Treatment of colorectal cancer in older patients: International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) consensus recommendations 2013. Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aparicio, T.; Francois, E.; Cristol-Dalstein, L.; Carola, E.; Maillard, E.; Paillaud, E.; Retornaz, F.; Faroux, R.; André, T.; Bedenne, L.; et al. PRODIGE 34—FFCD 1402—ADAGE: Adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with resected stage III colon cancer: A randomized phase 3 trial. Dig. Liver Dis. 2016, 48, 206–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Folprecht, G.; Seymour, M.T.; Saltz, L.; Douillard, J.Y.; Hecker, H.; Stephens, R.J.; Maughan, T.S.; Van Cutsem, E.; Rougier, P.; Mitry, E.; et al. Irinotecan/fluorouracil combination in first-line therapy of older and younger patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Combined analysis of 2,691 patients in randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 1443–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jackson, N.A.; Barrueco, J.; Soufi-Mahjoubi, R.; Marshall, J.; Mitchell, E.; Zhang, X.; Meyerhardt, J. Comparing safety and efficacy of first-line irinotecan/fluoropyrimidine combinations in elderly versus nonelderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Findings from the bolus, infusional, or capecitabine with camptostar-celecoxib study. Cancer 2009, 115, 2617–2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Venderbosch, S.; Doornebal, J.; Teerenstra, S.; Lemmens, W.; Punt, C.J.A.; Koopman, M. Outcome of first line systemic treatment in elderly compared to younger patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective analysis of the CAIRO and CAIRO2 studies of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). Acta Oncol. 2012, 51, 831–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mitry, E.; Rougier, P. Review article: Benefits and risks of chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 2, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lieu, C.H.; Renfro, L.A.; De Gramont, A.; Meyers, J.P.; Maughan, T.S.; Seymour, M.T.; Saltz, L.; Goldberg, R.M.; Sargent, D.J.; Eckhardt, S.G.; et al. Association of age with survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis from the ARCAD clinical trials program. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 2975–2982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, L.; Cheung, W.Y.; Atkinson, E.; Krzyzanowska, M.K. Impact of comorbidity on chemotherapy use and outcomes in solid tumors: A systematic review. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Søgaard, M.; Thomsen, R.W.; Bossen, K.S.; Sørensen, H.T.; Nørgaard, M. The impact of comorbidity on cancer survival: A review. Clin. Epidemiol. 2013, 5, 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Nardo, B.; Serafini, S.; Ruggiero, M.; Grande, R.; Fugetto, F.; Zullo, A.; Novello, M.; Rizzuto, A.; Bonaiuto, E.; Vaccarisi, S.; et al. Liver resection for metastases from colorectal cancer in very elderly patients: New surgical horizons. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 33, S135–S141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Barone, M.; Prioletta, M.; Di Nuzzo, D.; Cipollone, G.; Camplese, P.; Mucilli, F. Pulmonary metastasectomy in elderly colorectal cancer patients: A retrospective single center study. Updates Surg. 2016, 68, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Charlson, M.E.; Pompei, P.; Ales, K.L.; MacKenzie, C.R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J. Chronic Dis. 1987, 40, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Koppert, L.B.; Lemmens, V.E.P.P.; Coebergh, J.W.W.; Steyerberg, E.W.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Tilanus, H.W.; Janssen-Heijnen, M.L.G. Impact of age and co-morbidity on surgical resection rate and survival in patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2012, 99, 1693–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lemmens, V.E.P.P.; Janssen-Heijnen, M.L.G.; Verheij, C.D.G.W.; Houterman, S.; Repelaer Van Driel, O.J.; Coebergh, J.W.W. Co-morbidity leads to altered treatment and worse survival of elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2005, 92, 615–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Charlson, M.; Szatrowski, T.P.; Peterson, J.; Gold, J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1994, 47, 1245–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Patterson, H.D.; Belsley, D.A.; Kuh, E.; Welsch, R.E. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. Biometrics 1981, 37, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morishima, T.; Matsumoto, Y.; Koeda, N.; Shimada, H.; Maruhama, T.; Matsuki, D.; Nakata, K.; Ito, Y.; Tabuchi, T.; Miyashiro, I. Impact of comorbidities on survival in gastric, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. J. Epidemiol. 2019, 29, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Piccirillo, J.F.; Tierney, R.M.; Costas, I.; Grove, L.; Spitznagel, E.L. Prognostic importance of comorbidity in a hospital-based cancer registry. JAMA 2004, 291, 2441–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wu, C.C.; Hsu, T.W.; Chang, C.M.; Yu, C.H.; Lee, C.C. Age-adjusted charlson comorbidity index scores as predictor of survival in colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgical resection and chemoradiation. Medicine 2015, 94, e431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lund, C.M.; Vistisen, K.K.; Dehlendorff, C.; Rønholt, F.; Johansen, J.S.; Nielsen, D.L. Age-dependent differences in first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: The DISCO study. Acta Oncol. 2018, 57, 1445–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sarfati, D.; Hill, S.; Blakely, T.; Robson, B.; Purdie, G.; Dennett, E.; Cormack, D.; Dew, K. The effect of comorbidity on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival from colon cancer: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 2009, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Gross, C.P.; McAvay, G.J.; Krumholz, H.M.; Paltiel, A.D.; Bhasin, D.; Tinetti, M.E. The effect of age and chronic illness on life expectancy after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer: Implications for screening. Ann. Intern. Med. 2006, 145, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Boakye, D.; Walter, V.; Jansen, L.; Martens, U.M.; Chang-Claude, J.; Hoffmeister, M.; Brenner, H. Magnitude of the age-advancement effect of comorbidities in colorectal cancer prognosis. JNCCN J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2020, 18, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Glimelius, B.; Pfeiffer, P. Do we make progress in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer? Acta Oncol. 2018, 57, 1422–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Patel, S.S.; Nelson, R.; Sanchez, J.; Lee, W.; Uyeno, L.; Garcia-Aguilar, J.; Hurria, A.; Kim, J. Elderly patients with colon cancer have unique tumor characteristics and poor survival. Cancer 2013, 119, 739–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lund, C.M.; Vistisen, K.K.; Dehlendorff, C.; Rønholt, F.; Johansen, J.S.; Nielsen, D.L. The effect of geriatric intervention in frail elderly patients receiving chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: A randomized trial (GERICO). BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Signal, V.; Jackson, C.; Signal, L.; Hardie, C.; Holst, K.; McLaughlin, M.; Steele, C.; Sarfati, D. Improving management of comorbidity in patients with colorectal cancer using comprehensive medical assessment: A pilot study. BMC Cancer 2020, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 13 02091 g001 550
Figure 1. Patient selection.
Figure 1. Patient selection.
Cancers 13 02091 g001
Cancers 13 02091 g002 550
Figure 2. Overall survival by treatment type and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (A) or age (B).
Figure 2. Overall survival by treatment type and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (A) or age (B).
Cancers 13 02091 g002
Table
Table 1. Patient demographics.
Table 1. Patient demographics.
VariableCategoryN (%)
Patients (n)number1105
Age (Median (IQR))years69.00 (60.00, 76.00)
Sexfemale413 (37.4)
male692 (62.6)
CCI0357 (63.0)
1 to 2178 (31.4)
>232 (5.6)
aaCCI0 to 1123 (21.7)
2 to 4261 (46.0)
>4183 (32.3)
Type of treatmentsytemic treatment only590 (53.4)
resection of metastases +/− systemic treatment270 (24.4)
Treated or not treatedtreated (resection and/or systemic therapy)860 (77.8)
no treatment (BSC)245 (22.2)
First line treatmentno342 (31.0)
yes763 (69.0)
Second line treatmentno613 (55.5)
yes492 (44.5)
Third line treatmentno819 (74.1)
yes286 (25.9)
Location of primary tumorright colon195 (18.1)
left colon499 (46.2)
rectum385 (35.7)
Time to metastasissynchronous771 (69.8)
metachronous334 (30.2)
BRAF statusBRAF-mut41 (3.7)
BRAF-wt365 (33.0)
not analyzed699 (63.3)
RAS statusRAS-mut453 (41.0)
RAS-wt426 (38.6)
not analyzed226 (20.5)
Organs with metastases>1 organ with metastases322 (29.2)
single organ metastasis781 (70.8)
Values are given in n (%) if not otherwise stated; CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index; aa: age adjusted.
Table
Table 2. Clinical outcome in all patients and subgroups defined by comorbidities and age depending on treatment.
Table 2. Clinical outcome in all patients and subgroups defined by comorbidities and age depending on treatment.
Patient GroupsTreatment GroupsHRCI 90%OS (Months)CI 95%
All patients (n = 1105)BSC1 5.58(3.88–7.17)
incl. metastasis resection0.16(0.13–0.20)54.3(45.96–65.80)
systemic therapy only0.45(0.38–0.52)19.74(17.67–22.04)
aaCCI ≤ 3 (n = 370)BSC1 5.58(2.73–9.4)
incl. metastasis resection0.12(0.08–0.17)56.54(45.96–100.5)
systemic therapy only0.3(0.22–0.39)26.02(22.01–29.9)
aaCCI > 3 (n = 197)BSC1 3.93(1.97–6.87)
incl. metastasis resection0.16(0.10–0.24)36.7(19.81–96.06)
systemic therapy only0.39(0.29–0.51)17.44(14.29–21.22)
Age ≤ 70 years (n = 609)BSC1 5.03(2.66–9.4)
incl. metastasis resection0.12(0.09–0.15)58.64(53.02–78.0)
systemic therapy only0.36(0.28–0.45)22.77(20.47–24.9)
Age > 70 years (n = 496)BSC1 5.91(3.88–7.33)
incl. metastasis resection0.23(0.18–0.30)38.04(30.91–54.30)
systemic therapy only0.56(0.47–0.66)15.8(13.70–17.84)
BSC Best supportive care; HR Harzard Ratio; CI Confidence Intervall; CCI Charlson Comorbidity Index; aaCCI age adjusted CCI.
Table
Table 3. Treatment intensity and biological features according to comorbidities and age.
Table 3. Treatment intensity and biological features according to comorbidities and age.
VariableCategoryaaCCIp (Exact)
aaCCI ≤ 3aaCCI > 3
n= 370n= 197
Type and intensity of treatmentReceiving best supportive care46 (12.4)74 (37.6)<0.001
Metastasis resection only27 (7.3)17 (8.6)0.622
Metastasis resection and systemic treatment92 (24.9)19 (9.6)<0.001
Receiving systemic treatment only205 (55.4)87 (44.2)0.013
Receiving first line therapy297 (80.3)106 (53.8)<0.001
Receiving second line therapy189 (51.1)50 (25.4)<0.001
Receiving third line or more therapy91 (24.6)27 (13.7)0.002
1 treatment line only108 (29.2)57 (28.9)1.000
2 treatment lines only98 (26.5)23 (11.7)<0.001
3 or more treatment lines91 (24.6)26 (13.2)0.001
Location of primary tumorRight sided colon cancer53 (14.6)39 (20.2)0.010
Left sided colon cancer160 (44.0)98 (50.8)
Rectum cancer151 (41.5)56 (29.0)
Prognostic featuresRAS analyzed325 (87.8)129 (65.5)<0.001
Synchronous disease266 (71.9)141 (71.6)1.000
>1 organ with metastases136 (36.8)59 (30.1)0.115
Age [Years]p (Exact)
≤70>70
n= 609n= 496
Type and intensity of treatmentReceiving best supportive care68 (11.2)177 (35.7)<0.001
Metastasis resection only58 (9.5)39 (7.9)0.339
Metastasis resection and systemic treatment128 (21.0)45 (9.1)<0.001
Receiving systemic treatment only355 (58.3)235 (47.4)<0.001
Receiving first line therapy483 (79.3)280 (56.5)<0.001
Receiving second line therapy344 (56.5)148 (29.8)<0.001
Receiving third line or more therapy204 (33.5)82 (16.5)<0.001
1 treatment line only142 (23.3)132 (26.6)0.208
2 treatment lines only140 (23.0)66 (13.3)<0.001
3 or more treatment lines201 (33.0)82 (16.5)<0.001
Location of primary tumorRight sided colon cancer87 (14.6)108 (22.3)<0.001
Left sided colon cancer270 (45.5)229 (47.2)
Rectum cancer237 (39.9)148 (30.5)
Prognostic featuresRAS analyzed521 (85.6)358 (72.2)<0.001
Synchronous disease425 (69.8)346 (69.8)1.000
>1 organ with metastases190 (31.2)132 (26.7)0.097
Numbers are given as n (%); aaCCI: age adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index; p (exact) significance level by exact-test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Niedersüß-Beke, D.; Orlinger, M.; Falch, D.; Heiler, C.; Piringer, G.; Thaler, J.; Hilbe, W.; Petzer, A.; Rumpold, H. Clinical Effectiveness of Oncological Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Is Independent of Comorbidities and Age. Cancers 2021, 13, 2091. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092091

AMA Style

Niedersüß-Beke D, Orlinger M, Falch D, Heiler C, Piringer G, Thaler J, Hilbe W, Petzer A, Rumpold H. Clinical Effectiveness of Oncological Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Is Independent of Comorbidities and Age. Cancers. 2021; 13(9):2091. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092091

Chicago/Turabian Style

Niedersüß-Beke, Dora, Manuel Orlinger, David Falch, Cordula Heiler, Gudrun Piringer, Josef Thaler, Wolfgang Hilbe, Andreas Petzer, and Holger Rumpold. 2021. "Clinical Effectiveness of Oncological Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Is Independent of Comorbidities and Age" Cancers 13, no. 9: 2091. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092091

APA Style

Niedersüß-Beke, D., Orlinger, M., Falch, D., Heiler, C., Piringer, G., Thaler, J., Hilbe, W., Petzer, A., & Rumpold, H. (2021). Clinical Effectiveness of Oncological Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Is Independent of Comorbidities and Age. Cancers, 13(9), 2091. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092091

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop