Background: Elderly patients rarely receive adequate dose intensity (DI) using conventional regimens. Possible causes are improper patient assessment, the chemotherapy (CT) regimen chosen, the number and severity of comorbidities, patient compliance and physician experience. To explore this issue, DI was retrospectively analyzed in elderly patients treated with conventional CT regimens for advanced solid cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients ≧69 years were evaluated. All patients had metastatic solid tumors. Comorbidities, performance status (PS), toxicities, number of CT cycles, dose reduction and discontinuation of treatment were recorded. Relative DI (RDI) was calculated and regressed against these parameters. Results: 108 patients were eligible. The most frequent diagnoses were: lung, head-and-neck and colorectal cancer. In 48 patients (44%), their initially scheduled treatment was modified. Mean RDI was 79% (range 19–100%, SD 20.6). Grade 3/4 non-hematological and hematological toxicity occurred in 27 (35/130) and 8% of patients (11/130), respectively. In regression analysis, RDI was significantly associated with hematological toxicity. RDI affected response rate but not overall survival. Conclusions: RDI is significantly affected by toxicity. These data suggest the importance of the treatment schedule and patient selection as predictorsof adequate treatment. Some non-ratable variables, however, might also play a role regarding the dose intensity delivered.

1.
Balducci L, Ershler WB: Cancer and ageing: a nexus at several levels. Nat Rev Cancer 2005;5:655–662.
2.
Goldin A, Humphreys SR, Mantel N, et al: Modification of treatment of schedules in the management of advanced mouse leukemia with amethopterin. J Natl Cancer Inst 1956;17:203–212.
3.
Goldin A, Humphreys SR, Venditti JM, et al: Growth studies on sarcoma 37 in mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 1956;16:1207–1220.
4.
Norton L, Simon R: The Norton-Simon hypothesis revisited. Cancer Treat Rep 1986;70:163–169.
5.
Hryniuk W, Bush H: The importance of dose intensity in chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1984;2:1281–1288.
6.
Sculier JP, Lafitte JJ, Berghmans T, et al: A phase III randomised study comparing two different dose-intensity regimens as induction chemotherapy followed by thoracic irradiation in patients with advanced locoregional non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2004;15:399–409.
7.
Jacobson JO, Grossbard M, Shulman LN, et al: CHOP chemotherapy with preemptive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a dose-intensity analysis. Clin Lymphoma 2000;1:211–217; discussion 218.
8.
Jost LM, Widmer L, Honegger HP, et al: Index of pretreatment intensity predicts outcome of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous progenitor cell transplantation in chemosensitive relapse of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 1997;8:785–790.
9.
Brufman G, Colajori E, Ghilezan N, et al: Doubling epirubicin dose intensity (100 mg/m2 versus 50 mg/m2) in the FEC regimen significantly increases response rates. An international randomised phase III study in metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1997;8:155–162.
10.
Woll PJ, Hodgetts J, Lomax L, et al: Can cytotoxic dose-intensity be increased by using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor? A randomized controlled trial of lenograstim in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:652–659.
11.
Miles DW, Fogarty O, Ash CM, et al: Received dose-intensity: a randomized trial of weekly chemotherapy with and without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:77–82.
12.
Marsland TA, Garfield DH, Khan MM, et al: Sequential versus concurrent paclitaxel and carboplatin for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in elderly patients and patients with poor performance status: results of two phase II, multicenter trials. Lung Cancer 2005;47:111–120.
13.
Tibaldi C, Ricci S, Russo F, et al: Increased dose-intensity of gemcitabine in advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a multicenter phase II study in elderly patients from the ‘polmone toscano group’ (POLTO). Lung Cancer 2005;48:121–127.
14.
Massacesi C, Marcucci F, Boccetti T, et al: Low dose-intensity docetaxel in the treatment of pre-treated elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2005;24:43–48.
15.
Kim JH, Oh DY, Kim YJ, et al: Reduced dose intensity FOLFOX-4 as first line palliative chemotherapy in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer. J Korean Med Sci 2005;20:806–810.
16.
Lyman GH, Dale DC, Crawford J: Incidence and predictors of low dose-intensity in adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: a nationwide study of community practices. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4524–4531.
17.
Miller MD, Paradis CF, Houck PR, et al: Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale. Psychiatry Res 1992;41:237–248.
18.
Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, et al: CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol 2003;13:176–181.
19.
Hryniuk WM, Goodyear M: The calculation of received dose intensity. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1935–1937.
20.
Skipper H: Data and analysis having to do with the influence of dose intensity and duration of treatment (single drugs and combination) on lethal toxicity and the therapeutic response of experimental neoplasm. Birmingham, Southern Research Institute, 1986, Booklet 3, and 1987, Booklets 2–13.
21.
Gregory SA, Trumper L: Chemotherapy dose intensity in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: is dose intensity an emerging paradigm for better outcomes? Ann Oncol 2005;16:1413–1424.
22.
Minor DR, Madland MT, Kashani-Sabet M, et al: A retrospective study of biochemotherapy for metastatic melanoma: the importance of dose intensity. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2005;20:479–486.
23.
Patel K, Anthoney DA, Crellin AM, et al: Weekly 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: achieving lower toxicity with higher dose-intensity in adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer resection. Ann Oncol 2004;15:568–573.
24.
Keyes KA, Albella B, LoRusso PM, et al: Cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens that increase dose per cycle (dose intensity) by extending daily dosing from 5 consecutive days to 28 consecutive days and beyond. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:2474–2481.
25.
De Placido S, Lauria R, Carlomagno C, et al: The impact of schedule on acute toxicity and dose-intensity of high-dose chemotherapy with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus colony stimulating factors in advanced breast cancer. Int J Oncol 1999;15:339–346.
26.
Klasa RJ, Murray N, Coldman AJ: Dose-intensity meta-analysis of chemotherapy regimens in small-cell carcinoma of the lung. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:499–508.
27.
Schmitz N, Kloess M, Reiser M, et al: Four versus six courses of a dose-escalated cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) regimen plus etoposide (megaCHOEP) and autologous stem cell transplantation: early dose intensity is crucial in treating younger patients with poor prognosis aggressive lymphoma. Cancer 2006;106:136–145.
28.
Portlock CS: Dose density and dose intensity: where does CHOP go from here? Ann Oncol 2002;13:1329–1330.
29.
Balzarotti M, Spina M, Sarina B, et al: Intensified CHOP regimen in aggressive lymphomas: maximal dose intensity and dose density of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1341–1346.
30.
Surbone A, Kagawa-Singer M, Terret C, et al: The illness trajectory of elderly cancer patients across cultures: SIOG position paper. Ann Oncol 2007;18:633–638.
31.
Crawford J: The importance of chemotherapy dose intensity in lung cancer. Semin Oncol 2004;31:25–31.
32.
Tjan-Heijnen VCG, Wagener DJT, Postmus PE: An analysis of chemotherapy dose and dose-intensity in small-cell lung cancer: lessons to be drawn. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1519–1530.
33.
Bergh J: Dose intensity in patients with metastatic breast cancer – time for novel thoughts? Ann Oncol 1997;8:109–110.
34.
Giovanazzi-Bannon S, Rademaker A, Lai G, et al: Treatment tolerance of elderly cancer patients entered onto phase II clinical trials: an Illinois Cancer Center study. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:2447–2452.
35.
Rikkert MG, Diepstraten AM: Performance status and comorbidity in elderly cancer patients compared with young patients with neoplasia and elderly patients without neoplastic conditions. Cancer 1999;85:1210–1211.
36.
Repetto L, Venturino A, Vercelli M, et al: Performance status and comorbidity in elderly cancer patients compared with young patients with neoplasia and elderly patients without neoplastic conditions. Cancer 1998;82:760–765.
37.
Shayne M, Crawford J, Dale DC, et al: Predictors of reduced dose intensity in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;100:255–262.
38.
Lyman GH, Dale DC, Friedberg J, et al: Incidence and predictors of low chemotherapy dose-intensity in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a nationwide study. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4302–4311.
39.
Ramani VS, Gollins SW, Wong H: Weekly fluorouracil at 425 mg/m2 plus low-dose folinic acid for 24 weeks as adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer: assessment of toxicity and delivery. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2006;18:649–657.
40.
Firat S, Pleister A, Byhardt RW, et al: Age is independent of comorbidity influencing patient selection for combined modality therapy for treatment of stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Am J Clin Oncol 2006;29:252–257.
41.
Gonlugur TE, Gonlugur U: Comorbidity as a prognostic factor in small cell lung cancer. Tumori 2006;92:423–428.
42.
Firat S, Bousamra M, Gore E, et al: Comorbidity and KPS are independent prognostic factors in stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:1047–1057.
43.
Firat S, Byhardt RW, Gore E: Comorbidity and Karnofksy performance score are independent prognostic factors in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: an institutional analysis of patients treated on four RTOG studies. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:357–364.
44.
Perrone F, Di Maio M, Gallo C, et al: Outcome of patients with a performance status of 2 in the Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES). J Clin Oncol 2004;22:5018–5020; 5020–5021.
45.
Lee D: Benefit of active treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer in elderly patients and patients with poor performance status. Clin Lung Cancer 2003;5:86–89.
46.
Gronlund B, Hogdall C, Hansen HH, et al: Performance status rather than age is the key prognostic factor in second-line treatment of elderly patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2002;94:1961–1967.
47.
Gridelli C, Hainsworth J: Meeting the chemotherapy needs of elderly and poor performance status patients with NSCLC. Lung Cancer 2002;38(suppl 4):37–41.
48.
Repetto L, Fratino L, Audisio RA, et al: Comprehensive geriatric assessment adds information to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in elderly cancer patients: an Italian Group for Geriatric Oncology Study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:494–502.
49.
Dobie SA, Baldwin LM, Dominitz JA, et al: Completion of therapy by Medicare patients with stage III colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:610–619.
50.
Grann VR, Muggia FM: Completion rates of adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer: a historical perspective. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:570–571.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.