The aim was to investigate if oncologic treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and a multidisciplinary team conference in patients with G8 ≤ 14 was better than treatment decision based on standard assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02671994. From January 2016 to June 2018, 96 patients with cancer, aged ≥70 years, were included. Patients were randomized to treatment decision based on the oncologist's clinical judgement (control) or based on screening with G8. If G8 > 14 treatment decision was made as in the control group and if G8 ≤ 14, patients were referred to CGA including intervention as needed and treatment decision after a multidisciplinary team conference (MDT). The study was closed early. 47 patients were randomized to the control group and 49 to the intervention group; 28 had a G8 ≤ 14, 24 of whom attended CGA. In the intervention group 48% completed treatment as planned compared to 54% in the control group (p = .208). Thirty-eight percent experienced grade 3-4 toxicity in the control group compared with only 20% in the intervention group (p = .055). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 months in the control group and 19.1 months in the intervention group (p = .911). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months in the control group and 7.8 months for the intervention group (p = .838). Treatment decision based on G8 screening followed by CGA had no impact on completion rate of planned oncologic treatment, OS or PFS, but resulted in a borderline significant lower incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity.

Purpose: This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016–2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m² and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. Methods: A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Results: Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK₁ receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. Conclusion: There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists or between NK₁ receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.