Dataset Information

The Prognostic Importance of Frailty in Cancer Survivors.

ABSTRACT: To quantify the prognostic importance of prefrailty and frailty in a population-based sample of cancer survivors.The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey mortality-linked prospective cohort study.Eighty-nine survey locations across the United States.Population-based sample of older adults (average age 72.2) with a self-reported diagnosis of non-skin-related cancer (N = 416).The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Frailty components included low weight for height, slow walking, weakness, exhaustion, and low physical activity. Participants with none of the five criteria were classified as nonfrail, those with one or two as prefrail, and those with three or more as frail.The prevalence of prefrailty was 37.3% and of frailty was 9.1%. During a median follow-up of 11.2 years, 319 (76.7%) participants died. Median survival was 13.9 years for participants classified as nonfrail, 9.5 years for those classified as prefrail, and 2.5 years for those classified as frail. Cancer survivors classified as prefrail (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28-2.65, P = .001) or frail (HR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.34-5.81, P = .006) had a higher risk of premature mortality than those classified as nonfrail.Prefrailty and frailty are prevalent clinical syndromes that may confer greater risk of premature mortality in older adult cancer survivors. Identifying frail cancer survivors and targeting interventions for them may be a strategy to improve survival after cancer.

SUBMITTER: Brown JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4688177 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Prognostic Importance of Frailty in Cancer Survivors.

Brown Justin C JC Harhay Michael O MO Harhay Meera N MN

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20151114 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>To quantify the prognostic importance of prefrailty and frailty in a population-based sample of cancer survivors.<h4>Design</h4>The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey mortality-linked prospective cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>Eighty-nine survey locations across the United States.<h4>Participants</h4>Population-based sample of older adults (average age 72.2) with a self-reported diagnosis of non-skin-related cancer (N = 416).<h4>Measurements</h4>The primary o ...[more]

PMID: 26566767

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe evaluated deficit accumulation and how deficits affected cognition and physical activity among breast cancer survivors and non-cancer controls.MethodsNewly diagnosed nonmetastatic survivors (n = 353) and matched non-cancer controls (n = 355) ages 60-98 years without neurological impairments were assessed presystemic therapy (or at enrollment for controls) from August 2010 to December 2016 and followed for 36 months. Scores on a 42-item index were analyzed in growth-mixture models to determine deficit accumulation trajectories separately and combined for survivors and controls. Multilevel models tested associations between trajectory and cognition (FACT-Cog and neuropsychological tests) and physical activity (IPAQ-SF) for survivors and controls.ResultsDeficit accumulation scores were in the robust range, but survivors had higher scores (95% confidence intervals [CI]) than controls at 36 months (0.18, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.19, vs 0.16, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.17; P = .001), and averages included diverse deficit trajectories. Survivors who were robust but became frailer (8.8%) had similar baseline characteristics to those remaining robust (76.2%) but experienced a 9.6-point decline self-reported cognition (decline of 9.6 vs 3.2 points; P = .04) and a 769 MET minutes per week decline in physical activity (P < .001). Survivors who started and remained prefrail (15.0%) had self-reported and objective cognitive problems. At baseline, frail controls (9.5%) differed from robust controls (83.7%) on deficits and self-reported cognition (P < .001). Within combined trajectories, frail survivors had more sleep disturbances than frail controls (48.6% [SD = 17.4%] vs 25.0% [SD = 8.2%]; P = .05).ConclusionsMost survivors and controls remained robust, and there were similar proportions on a frail trajectory. However, there were differences in deficit patterns between survivors and controls. Survivor deficit accumulation trajectory was associated with patient-reported outcomes. Additional research is needed to understand how breast cancer and its treatments affect deficit accumulation.

Project description:Background:Second cancer is the leading cause of death in lymphoma survivors, with lung cancer representing the most common solid tumor. Limited information exists about the treatment and prognosis of second lung cancer following lymphoma. Herein, we evaluated the outcome and prognostic factors of Lung Cancer in Lymphoma Survivors (the LuCiLyS study) to improve the patient selection for lung cancer treatment. Methods:This is a retrospective multicentre study including consecutive patients treated for lymphoma disease that subsequently developed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data regarding lymphoma including age, symptoms, histology, disease stage, treatment received and lymphoma status at the time of lung cancer diagnosis, and data on lung carcinoma as age, smoking history, latency from lymphoma, symptoms, histology, disease stage, treatment received, and survival were evaluated to identify the significant prognostic factors for overall survival. Results:Our study population included 164 patients, 145 of which underwent lung cancer resection. The median overall survival was 63 (range, 58-85) months, and the 5-year survival rate 54%. At univariable analysis no-active lymphoma (HR: 2.19; P=0.0152); early lymphoma stage (HR: 1.95; P=0.01); adenocarcinoma histology (HR: 0.59; P=0.0421); early lung cancer stage (HR: 3.18; P<0.0001); incidental diagnosis of lung cancer (HR: 1.71; P<0.0001); and lung cancer resection (HR: 2.79; P<0.0001) were favorable prognostic factors. At multivariable analysis, no-active lymphoma (HR: 2.68; P=0.004); early lung cancer stage (HR: 2.37; P<0.0001); incidental diagnosis of lung cancer (HR: 2.00; P<0.0001); and lung cancer resection (HR: 2.07; P<0.0001) remained favorable prognostic factors. Patients with non-active lymphoma (n=146) versus those with active lymphoma (n=18) at lung cancer diagnosis presented better median survival (64 vs. 37 months; HR: 2.4; P=0.02), but median lung cancer specific survival showed no significant difference (27 vs. 19 months; HR: 0.3; P=0.17). Conclusions:The presence and/or a history of lymphoma should not be a contraindication to resection of lung cancer. Inclusion of lymphoma survivors in a lung cancer-screening program may lead to early detection of lung cancer, and improve the survival.

Project description:ObjectivesLittle is known about frailty that develops following critical illness. We sought to describe the prevalence of newly acquired frailty, its clinical course, and the co-occurrence of frailty with disability and cognitive impairment in survivors of critical illness.DesignLongitudinal prospective cohort study.SettingMedical and surgical ICUs at five U.S. centers.PatientsAdult patients treated for respiratory failure and/or shock.Measurements and main resultsWe measured frailty with the Clinical Frailty Scale at baseline (i.e., study enrollment) and at 3 and 12 months postdischarge. We constructed alluvial diagrams to describe the course of frailty and Venn diagrams to describe the overlap of frailty with disability in activities of daily living and cognitive impairment. We included 567 participants a median (interquartile range) of 61 years old (51-70 yr old) with a high severity of illness (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II of 23). Frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale scores ≥ 5) was present in 135 of 567 (24%) at baseline, 239 of 530 (45%) at 3 months, and 163 of 445 (37%) at 12 months. Of those with frailty at 3- or 12-month follow-up, 61% were not frail at baseline. Transition to a worse frailty state occurred in 242 of 530 of patients (46%) between baseline and 3 months and in 179 of 445 of patients (40%) between baseline and 12 months. There were 376 patients with frailty, disability, or cognitive impairment at 3-month follow-up. Of these, 53 (14%) had frailty alone. At 12 months, 276 patients had frailty, disability, or cognitive impairment, 37 (13%) of whom had frailty alone.ConclusionsFrailty is common among survivors of critical illness. In the majority, frailty is newly acquired. Roughly one in seven had frailty without co-occurring disability or cognitive impairment. Studies to understand outcomes of frailty that develops as the result of a critical illness and to identify modifiable risk factors for this potentially reversible syndrome are needed.

Dataset Information

The Prognostic Importance of Frailty in Cancer Survivors.

Publications

The Prognostic Importance of Frailty in Cancer Survivors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets