4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Influence of age and comorbidities on the chemotherapeutic management of lung cancer

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 33, Issue -, Pages S115-S120

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5002(01)00311-7

Keywords

lung cancer; chemotherapy; elderly patients; comorbidities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

More than 60% of all patients with cancer are currently older than 65 years. Correspondingly, the peak of lung cancer incidence is reached in the age group between 75 and 80 years. As a consequence to this ageing patient population, three factors become of major importance for the chemotherapeutic management of lung cancer, namely functional status, age-specific phenomenon and the presence of comorbidities. While the functional status is dependent on physiological changes in organ function, ageing-specific phenomena include depression, alterations of mental status, reduced nutritional status and missing social support. Comorbidities frequently have a risk profile comparable to that of lung cancer. Clinical studies with a special focus on elderly patients are still rare. In small-cell lung cancer retrospective analyses have demonstrated that age alone is not a major prognostic factor compared to performance status. tumor stage or gender. Nevertheless elderly patients with lung cancer are still frequently excluded from clinical trials, and receive less optimal or even no chemotherapeutic treatment at all. Studies evaluating less aggressive treatment figured out that single agent therapy with etoposide is inferior compared to combination chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). In elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), single agent treatment with vinorelbine plus 'Best Supportive Care' was significantly superior to 'Best Supportive Care (BSC)' alone; with respect to survival and symptom palliation. (C) 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available