Limited tools exist to specifically predict the risk of chemotherapy toxicity and related events in older individuals with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.
Materials and Methods
We evaluated patients aged ≥60 years with GI cancers who underwent a comprehensive geriatric assessment comprising demographic, cancer variables, and geriatric domains (function, comorbidities, nutritional status, medications, cognition, psychological status, and social support). A Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) score was calculated in all patients. The occurrence of grade 3 to 5 adverse events, emergent hospitalizations, and sudden death without identifiable adverse events were defined as treatment related adverse events (TRAE) to form the new predictive model. Based on initial univariate analysis of factors predicting for TRAE and then multivariate analysis, a nomogram was developed to predict the probability TRAEs. The total score derived from the nomogram was categorized into low, moderate, and high-risk groups based on a recursive partitioning algorithm.
Results
In total, 701 patients with a median age of 67 years (range, 60 to 88 years) with predominantly stage IV cancers (58 %) were analysed. The distribution of GI cancers was gastric and esophageal cancers (n = 349, 50 %), hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancers (n = 241, 34 %), and colorectal cancers (n = 84, 12 %). TRAE occurred in 53 % of the patients. A predictive model for TRAE was developed using the Mobility-Tiredness (Mob-T) Scale, hearing, cancer stage, site of primary, and chemotherapy dosing (standard or reduced). A predictive score in which the median risk score was 22 (range, 0 to 40) and risk stratification identified older adults at low risk (0 to 13 points; 17 %), intermediate risk (14 to 21 points; 40 %), or high risk (>22 points; 71 %) of chemotherapy toxicity (P < 0.001). The new model outperformed the CARG score based on ROC analysis (0.75 vs 0.59, p < 0.001).
Discussion
A new and simpler risk score predicts for chemotherapy related adverse events in older patients with GI cancers and seems to be more accurate than the CARG score. The score requires validation in prospective studies.
{"title":"Development of a new model for prediction of relevant treatment related adverse events in older individuals with gastrointestinal cancers","authors":"Vallish Shenoy , Sadhana Kannan , Vanita Noronha , Kumar Prabhash , Vikas Ostwal , Prabhat Bhargava , Anupa Pillai , K. Shamseeya , Ankush Shetake , Ratan Dhekale , Ankita Chitre , Vikram Gota , Sarika Mahajan , Anuradha Daptardar , Lekhika Sonkusare , Jayita Deodhar , Nabila Ansari , Manjusha Vagal , Purabi Mahajan , Manjunath Nookala , Anant Ramaswamy","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102817","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102817","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Limited tools exist to specifically predict the risk of chemotherapy toxicity and related events in older individuals with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>We evaluated patients aged ≥60 years with GI cancers who underwent a comprehensive geriatric assessment comprising demographic, cancer variables, and geriatric domains (function, comorbidities, nutritional status, medications, cognition, psychological status, and social support). A Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) score was calculated in all patients. The occurrence of grade 3 to 5 adverse events, emergent hospitalizations, and sudden death without identifiable adverse events were defined as treatment related adverse events (TRAE) to form the new predictive model. Based on initial univariate analysis of factors predicting for TRAE and then multivariate analysis, a nomogram was developed to predict the probability TRAEs. The total score derived from the nomogram was categorized into low, moderate, and high-risk groups based on a recursive partitioning algorithm.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 701 patients with a median age of 67 years (range, 60 to 88 years) with predominantly stage IV cancers (58 %) were analysed. The distribution of GI cancers was gastric and esophageal cancers (<em>n</em> = 349, 50 %), hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancers (<em>n</em> = 241, 34 %), and colorectal cancers (<em>n</em> = 84, 12 %). TRAE occurred in 53 % of the patients. A predictive model for TRAE was developed using the Mobility-Tiredness (Mob-T) Scale, hearing, cancer stage, site of primary, and chemotherapy dosing (standard or reduced). A predictive score in which the median risk score was 22 (range, 0 to 40) and risk stratification identified older adults at low risk (0 to 13 points; 17 %), intermediate risk (14 to 21 points; 40 %), or high risk (>22 points; 71 %) of chemotherapy toxicity (<em>P</em> < 0.001). The new model outperformed the CARG score based on ROC analysis (0.75 vs 0.59, <em>p</em> < 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>A new and simpler risk score predicts for chemotherapy related adverse events in older patients with GI cancers and seems to be more accurate than the CARG score. The score requires validation in prospective studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"17 2","pages":"Article 102817"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145692903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-05DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102818
Julia García-García , Ana Rodriguez-Larrad , Maren Martinez de Rituerto Zeberio , Jenifer Gómez Mediavilla , Borja López-San Vicente , Nuria Torrego Artola , Izaskun Zeberio Etxetxipia , Irati Garmendia , Ainhoa Alberro , David Otaegui , Francisco Borrego Rabasco , María M. Caffarel , Kalliopi Vrotsou , Jon Irazusta , Haritz Arrieta , Mireia Pelaez , Jon Belloso , Laura Basterretxea
Introduction
Cancer in older adults is often associated with functional limitations, geriatric syndromes, poor self-rated health, vulnerability, and frailty, and these conditions might worsen treatment-related side effects. Recent guidelines for patients with cancer during and after treatment have documented the beneficial effects of exercise to counteract certain side effects; however, little is known about the role of exercise during cancer treatment in older adults.
Materials and Methods
This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in which 200 participants will be allocated to a control group or an intervention group (the sample size has been calculated to detect a clinical difference of 1 point in Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score, assuming an α error of 0.05, a β error of 0.20, and a 10 % loss rate). Patients aged ≥70 years, diagnosed with any type of solid cancer and candidates for systemic treatment are eligible. Subjects in the intervention group are invited to participate in a 12-week supervised multicomponent exercise programme in addition to receiving usual care. Study assessments are conducted at baseline and three months. The primary outcome measure is physical function as assessed by the SPPB. Secondary outcome measures include comprehensive geriatric assessment scores (including social situation, basic and instrumental activities of daily living, cognitive function, depression, nutritional status, polypharmacy, geriatric syndromes, pain, and emotional distress), anthropometric characteristics, frailty status, physical fitness, physical activity, cognitive function, quality of life, fatigue, and nutritional status. Study assessments also include analysis of inflammatory, endocrine, and nutritional mediators in serum and plasma as potential frailty biomarkers at mRNA and protein levels and multiparametric flow cytometric analysis to measure immunosenescence markers on T and NK cells.
Discussion
This study seeks to extend our knowledge on exercise interventions during systemic anticancer treatment in patients over 70 years of age. Results from this research will guide the management of older adults during systemic treatment in hospitals seeking to enhance the standard of care.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05131113, November 11, 2021.
{"title":"Effects of a 12-week multicomponent exercise programme on physical function in older adults with cancer: Study protocol for the ONKO-FRAIL randomised controlled trial","authors":"Julia García-García , Ana Rodriguez-Larrad , Maren Martinez de Rituerto Zeberio , Jenifer Gómez Mediavilla , Borja López-San Vicente , Nuria Torrego Artola , Izaskun Zeberio Etxetxipia , Irati Garmendia , Ainhoa Alberro , David Otaegui , Francisco Borrego Rabasco , María M. Caffarel , Kalliopi Vrotsou , Jon Irazusta , Haritz Arrieta , Mireia Pelaez , Jon Belloso , Laura Basterretxea","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102818","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102818","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Cancer in older adults is often associated with functional limitations, geriatric syndromes, poor self-rated health, vulnerability, and frailty, and these conditions might worsen treatment-related side effects. Recent guidelines for patients with cancer during and after treatment have documented the beneficial effects of exercise to counteract certain side effects; however, little is known about the role of exercise during cancer treatment in older adults.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in which 200 participants will be allocated to a control group or an intervention group (the sample size has been calculated to detect a clinical difference of 1 point in Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score, assuming an α error of 0.05, a β error of 0.20, and a 10 % loss rate). Patients aged ≥70 years, diagnosed with any type of solid cancer and candidates for systemic treatment are eligible. Subjects in the intervention group are invited to participate in a 12-week supervised multicomponent exercise programme in addition to receiving usual care. Study assessments are conducted at baseline and three months. The primary outcome measure is physical function as assessed by the SPPB. Secondary outcome measures include comprehensive geriatric assessment scores (including social situation, basic and instrumental activities of daily living, cognitive function, depression, nutritional status, polypharmacy, geriatric syndromes, pain, and emotional distress), anthropometric characteristics, frailty status, physical fitness, physical activity, cognitive function, quality of life, fatigue, and nutritional status. Study assessments also include analysis of inflammatory, endocrine, and nutritional mediators in serum and plasma as potential frailty biomarkers at mRNA and protein levels and multiparametric flow cytometric analysis to measure immunosenescence markers on T and NK cells.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>This study seeks to extend our knowledge on exercise interventions during systemic anticancer treatment in patients over 70 years of age. Results from this research will guide the management of older adults during systemic treatment in hospitals seeking to enhance the standard of care.</div></div><div><h3>Trial registration</h3><div><span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> Identifier: <span><span>NCT05131113</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, November 11, 2021.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"17 2","pages":"Article 102818"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145665429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-29DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102804
Rebecca Forman , Sarah J. Westvold , Jessica B. Long , Jane Fan , Terry Hyslop , Kerry Conlin , Sofia Jacobson , Shi-Yi Wang , Michael S. Leapman , Michael Cecchini , Ira Leeds , Lisa Spees , Carolyn Presley , Faiza Yasin , Melissa Taylor , Tendai Kwaramba , Cary P. Gross , Kevin Oeffinger , Michaela A. Dinan
Introduction: Due to the growth of the cancer survivor population, strategies to facilitate efficient delivery of survivorship care are critical to reduce the risk of adverse events associated with frailty. The objective of this study was to develop a risk stratification tool to identify long-term survivors at the highest risk of becoming frail 5–10 years after cancer diagnosis.
Materials and Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) dataset linked with Medicare data to identify patients with stage I-III breast, prostate, colon, or rectal cancers who lived at least five years from diagnosis and were not severely frail at year five post-diagnosis. Frailty was assessed using the claims-based Kim Frailty Index (FI) categorized by recommended thresholds. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) regression was used to identify clinical and demographic characteristics associated with frailty progression, defined as an increased category of the FI. Significant predictors were used to create clinical prediction rules and stratify survivors into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups.
Results: A total of 87,229 five-year survivors were included. At five years from diagnosis (time zero), 22 % of patients not frail at cancer diagnosis had new onset frailty and were mildly or moderately frail; at 10 years from diagnosis, 61 % had developed new or worsening frailty. Advanced age, comorbidities (RMST ratios ranging from 0.67 [95 % CI 0.65–0.70] to 0.80 [95 % CI 0.77–0.84], baseline moderate frailty at cancer diagnosis (RMST ratios ranging from 0.79 [95 % CI 0.76–0.83] to 0.86 [95 % CI 0.83–0.90]) and at five years post-diagnosis (RMST ratios ranging from 0.63 [95 % CI 0.62–0.64] to 0.71 [95 % CI 0.69–0.73]), living in a high poverty area (RMST ratios ranging from 0.91 [95 % CI 0.87–0.94] to 0.96, [95 % CI 0.93–0.99], and systemic treatments four to five years post-diagnosis (RMST ratios ranging from 0.77 [95 % CI: 0.70–0.84] to 0.86, [95 % CI: 0.84–0.89] were associated with less average time without frailty.
Discussion: Age, comorbidities, prior frailty, and late treatment were associated with frailty in older breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer survivors. This risk stratification model can be used by clinicians to assess cancer and age-related risk of frailty and facilitate timely intervention.
导言:由于癌症幸存者人口的增长,促进有效提供生存护理的策略对于减少与虚弱相关的不良事件的风险至关重要。本研究的目的是开发一种风险分层工具,以确定癌症诊断后5-10年内身体虚弱风险最高的长期幸存者。材料和方法:我们使用与医疗保险数据相关联的监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)数据集来识别I-III期乳腺癌、前列腺癌、结肠癌或直肠癌患者,这些患者在诊断后至少生活了5年,并且在诊断后5年没有严重虚弱。虚弱评估使用索赔为基础的金氏虚弱指数(FI)分类推荐阈值。限制平均生存时间(RMST)回归用于确定与衰弱进展相关的临床和人口学特征,定义为FI的增加类别。显著性预测因子用于建立临床预测规则,并将幸存者分为低、中、高风险组。结果:共纳入87,229例5年生存率。在诊断后5年(零时间),22%的癌症诊断时不虚弱的患者出现了新发虚弱,并且是轻度或中度虚弱;在确诊10年后,61%的人出现了新的或恶化的虚弱。先进的年龄、并发症(RMST比率从0.67 (95% CI 0.65 - -0.70), 0.80 (95% CI 0.77 - -0.84),基线中度脆弱在癌症诊断(RMST比率从0.79 (95% CI 0.76 - -0.83), 0.86 (95% CI 0.83 - -0.90)),在五年内post-diagnosis (RMST比率从0.63 (95% CI 0.62 - -0.64), 0.71 (95% CI 0.69 - -0.73)),生活在一个高贫困地区(RMST比率从0.91 (95% CI 0.87 - -0.94), 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 - -0.99),和诊断后4至5年的全身治疗(RMST比值范围为0.77 [95% CI: 0.70-0.84]至0.86,[95% CI: 0.84-0.89])与较短的平均无虚弱时间相关。讨论:年龄、合并症、既往虚弱和晚期治疗与老年乳腺癌、前列腺癌、结肠癌和直肠癌幸存者的虚弱相关。这种风险分层模型可以被临床医生用来评估癌症和年龄相关的虚弱风险,并促进及时干预。
{"title":"Personalized risk assessment of frailty in long-term cancer survivors","authors":"Rebecca Forman , Sarah J. Westvold , Jessica B. Long , Jane Fan , Terry Hyslop , Kerry Conlin , Sofia Jacobson , Shi-Yi Wang , Michael S. Leapman , Michael Cecchini , Ira Leeds , Lisa Spees , Carolyn Presley , Faiza Yasin , Melissa Taylor , Tendai Kwaramba , Cary P. Gross , Kevin Oeffinger , Michaela A. Dinan","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102804","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102804","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Introduction: Due to the growth of the cancer survivor population, strategies to facilitate efficient delivery of survivorship care are critical to reduce the risk of adverse events associated with frailty. The objective of this study was to develop a risk stratification tool to identify long-term survivors at the highest risk of becoming frail 5–10 years after cancer diagnosis.</div><div>Materials and Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) dataset linked with Medicare data to identify patients with stage I-III breast, prostate, colon, or rectal cancers who lived at least five years from diagnosis and were not severely frail at year five post-diagnosis. Frailty was assessed using the claims-based Kim Frailty Index (FI) categorized by recommended thresholds. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) regression was used to identify clinical and demographic characteristics associated with frailty progression, defined as an increased category of the FI. Significant predictors were used to create clinical prediction rules and stratify survivors into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups.</div><div>Results: A total of 87,229 five-year survivors were included. At five years from diagnosis (time zero), 22 % of patients not frail at cancer diagnosis had new onset frailty and were mildly or moderately frail; at 10 years from diagnosis, 61 % had developed new or worsening frailty. Advanced age, comorbidities (RMST ratios ranging from 0.67 [95 % CI 0.65–0.70] to 0.80 [95 % CI 0.77–0.84], baseline moderate frailty at cancer diagnosis (RMST ratios ranging from 0.79 [95 % CI 0.76–0.83] to 0.86 [95 % CI 0.83–0.90]) and at five years post-diagnosis (RMST ratios ranging from 0.63 [95 % CI 0.62–0.64] to 0.71 [95 % CI 0.69–0.73]), living in a high poverty area (RMST ratios ranging from 0.91 [95 % CI 0.87–0.94] to 0.96, [95 % CI 0.93–0.99], and systemic treatments four to five years post-diagnosis (RMST ratios ranging from 0.77 [95 % CI: 0.70–0.84] to 0.86, [95 % CI: 0.84–0.89] were associated with less average time without frailty.</div><div>Discussion: Age, comorbidities, prior frailty, and late treatment were associated with frailty in older breast, prostate, colon, and rectal cancer survivors. This risk stratification model can be used by clinicians to assess cancer and age-related risk of frailty and facilitate timely intervention.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"17 1","pages":"Article 102804"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145620220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction: Data on treatment preferences in older cancer patients are lacking. We aimed to identify their priorities.
Materials and methods: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study on patients with cancer aged ≥70 and 18-69, initiating first medical treatment. Patients and physicians prioritized eight aspects of care: treatment efficacy, life expectancy, autonomy, daily tasks, social activities, treatment burden, toxicity, and economic burden via self-completed questionnaires. The primary endpoint was the priorities of older patients.
Results: We included 233 older and 100 younger patients at eight sites. In the older patient cohort, median age was 79 (min-max: 70-97), breast cancer represented 34 % (N = 78) and lung 12 % (N = 27). Metastatic setting concerned 45 % of the patients. The most frequently rated top priority at treatment initiation was treatment efficacy in both older (73 %) and younger cohorts (79 %), followed by autonomy in the older cohort (13 %) and life expectancy in the younger cohort (14 %). Treatment efficacy was almost systematically cited in the top four priorities for both older (94 %) and younger patients (96 %), followed by autonomy (86 %) for older and life expectancy (82 %) for younger patients. These priorities were stable (>70 %) between initiation and three months for each cohort. Agreement rate for prioritization of aspects of care between older patients and physicians was 87 % for treatment efficacy and 64 % for autonomy.
Discussion: Autonomy was the second most cited priority among older patients, yet many physicians failed to recognize this, potentially affecting treatment decisions. These findings highlight the need for shared decision-making to align treatment choices with patient expectations.
{"title":"Important aspects of care and priorities of older patients with cancer: The PRIORITY multicenter cohort study.","authors":"Thomas Grellety, Carine Bellera, Coralie Cantarel, Cécile Mertens, Mathilde Cabart, Guilhem Roubaud, Marie-Claude Chantecaille, Hervé Desclos, Corinne Souyris, Patrick Bouchaert, Emmanuelle Bourbouloux, Catherine Terret, Cécile Delattre, Laurent Cany, Caroline Lalet, Simone Mathoulin-Pelissier, Pierre Soubeyran, Camille Chakiba Brugere","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102812","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Data on treatment preferences in older cancer patients are lacking. We aimed to identify their priorities.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study on patients with cancer aged ≥70 and 18-69, initiating first medical treatment. Patients and physicians prioritized eight aspects of care: treatment efficacy, life expectancy, autonomy, daily tasks, social activities, treatment burden, toxicity, and economic burden via self-completed questionnaires. The primary endpoint was the priorities of older patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 233 older and 100 younger patients at eight sites. In the older patient cohort, median age was 79 (min-max: 70-97), breast cancer represented 34 % (N = 78) and lung 12 % (N = 27). Metastatic setting concerned 45 % of the patients. The most frequently rated top priority at treatment initiation was treatment efficacy in both older (73 %) and younger cohorts (79 %), followed by autonomy in the older cohort (13 %) and life expectancy in the younger cohort (14 %). Treatment efficacy was almost systematically cited in the top four priorities for both older (94 %) and younger patients (96 %), followed by autonomy (86 %) for older and life expectancy (82 %) for younger patients. These priorities were stable (>70 %) between initiation and three months for each cohort. Agreement rate for prioritization of aspects of care between older patients and physicians was 87 % for treatment efficacy and 64 % for autonomy.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Autonomy was the second most cited priority among older patients, yet many physicians failed to recognize this, potentially affecting treatment decisions. These findings highlight the need for shared decision-making to align treatment choices with patient expectations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":" ","pages":"102812"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145512822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-13DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102811
Koshy Alexander , Sacha Roberts , Amy L. Tin , Jasmeet Singh , Diana Lake , Elissa Meditz , Abha Kulkarni , Manpreet Boparai , Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki , Armin Shahrokni
{"title":"Association between geriatric assessment domains and chemotherapy among older women with breast cancer","authors":"Koshy Alexander , Sacha Roberts , Amy L. Tin , Jasmeet Singh , Diana Lake , Elissa Meditz , Abha Kulkarni , Manpreet Boparai , Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki , Armin Shahrokni","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102811","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102811","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"17 1","pages":"Article 102811"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145513001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Comment on“Survival and risk factors for death in older adults with primary head and neck cancer: A retrospective observational cohort study”","authors":"Yu Tian , Hui Leng , XiangLong Hao , RuPeng Qu , AiPing Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102807","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102807","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"17 1","pages":"Article 102807"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145482221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-07DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102809
Hanna Kerminen , Esa Jämsen , Saara Markkanen
{"title":"Response to letters to the editor","authors":"Hanna Kerminen , Esa Jämsen , Saara Markkanen","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102809","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102809","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"17 1","pages":"Article 102809"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145475010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-07DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102808
Brijesh Sathian, Siham Mohammed Al Mushaifri, Ebtehal Obeidat, Hanadi Al Hamad
{"title":"Beyond age and anaemia: A reappraisal of prognostic factors in geriatric head and neck cancer","authors":"Brijesh Sathian, Siham Mohammed Al Mushaifri, Ebtehal Obeidat, Hanadi Al Hamad","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102808","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102808","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"17 1","pages":"Article 102808"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145475011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-06DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102810
Cara L. Chase , Zachary L. Chaplow , Colleen Spees , Jade Smith , Jessica L. Krok-Schoen
{"title":"Alcohol consumption in older cancer survivors: An analysis of adherence to the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research guidelines","authors":"Cara L. Chase , Zachary L. Chaplow , Colleen Spees , Jade Smith , Jessica L. Krok-Schoen","doi":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102810","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102810","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":15943,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric oncology","volume":"17 1","pages":"Article 102810"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145471046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}