Screening tools are proposed to identify those older cancer patients in need of geriatric assessment (GA) and multidisciplinary approach. We aimed to update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on the use of screening tools. SIOG composed a task group to review, interpret and discuss evidence on the use of screening tools in older cancer patients. A systematic review was carried out and discussed by an expert panel, leading to a consensus statement on their use. Forty-four studies reporting on the use of 17 different screening tools in older cancer patients were identified. The tools most studied in older cancer patients are G8, Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST) and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13). Across all studies, the highest sensitivity was observed for: G8, fTRST, Oncogeriatric screen, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status, Senior Adult Oncology Program (SAOP) 2 screening and Gerhematolim. In 11 direct comparisons for detecting problems on a full GA, the G8 was more or equally sensitive than other instruments in all six comparisons, whereas results were mixed for the VES-13 in seven comparisons. In addition, different tools have demonstrated associations with outcome measures, including G8 and VES-13. Screening tools do not replace GA but are recommended in a busy practice in order to identify those patients in need of full GA. If abnormal, screening should be followed by GA and guided multidisciplinary interventions. Several tools are available with different performance for various parameters (including sensitivity for addressing the need for further GA). Further research should focus on the ability of screening tools to build clinical pathways and to predict different outcome parameters.

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic characteristics of two geriatric screening tools (G8 and Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool [fTRST]) to identify patients with a geriatric risk profile and to evaluate their prognostic value for functional decline and overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods: Patients ≥ 70 years old with a malignant tumor were included if a new cancer event occurred requiring treatment decision. Geriatric screening with G8 and fTRST (cutoff ≥ 1 [fTRST (1)] and ≥ 2 [fTRST (2)] evaluated) was performed in all patients, as well as a geriatric assessment (GA) evaluating social situation, functionality (activities of daily living [ADL] + instrumental activities of daily living [IADL]), cognition, depression, and nutrition. Functionality was re-evaluated 2 to 3 months after cancer treatment decision, and death rate was followed. Functional decline and OS were evaluated in relation to normal versus abnormal score on both screening tools. Results: Nine hundred thirty-seven patients were included (October 2009 to July 2011). G8 and fTRST (1) showed high sensitivity (86.5% to 91.3%) and moderate negative predictive value (61.3% to 63.4%) to detect patients with a geriatric risk profile. G8 and fTRST (1) were strongly prognostic for functional decline on ADL and IADL, and G8, fTRST (1), and fTRST (2) were prognostic for OS (all P < .001). G8 had the strongest prognostic value for OS (hazard ratio for G8 normal v abnormal, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.52). Conclusion: Both geriatric screening tools, G8 and fTRST, are simple and useful instruments in older patients with cancer for identifying patients with a geriatric risk profile and have a strong prognostic value for functional decline and OS.

Objective: To better define the rare adverse event (AE) of diabetes mellitus associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Design and methods: We report the case of a lung cancer patient with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and autoimmune thyroiditis during pembrolizumab treatment. We provide a systematic review of all published cases (PubMed/Web of Science/Cochrane, through November 2018) of autoimmune diabetes mellitus related to blockade of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)-, programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor or its ligand (PD-L1) or combination (ICI) therapy. Results: Our literature search identified 90 patient cases (our case excluded). Most patients were treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 as monotherapy (79%) or in combination with CTLA-4 blockade (15%). On average, diabetes mellitus was diagnosed after 4.5 cycles; earlier for combination ICI at 2.7 cycles. Early-onset diabetes mellitus (after one or two cycles) was observed during all treatment regimens. Diabetic ketoacidosis was present in 71%, while elevated lipase levels were detected in 52% (13/25). Islet autoantibodies were positive in 53% of patients with a predominance of glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies. Susceptible HLA genotypes were present in 65% (mostly DR4). Thyroid dysfunction was the most frequent other endocrine AE at 24% incidence in this patient population. Conclusion: ICI-related diabetes mellitus is a rare but often life-threatening metabolic urgency of which health-care professionals and patients should be aware. Close monitoring of blood glucose and prompt endocrine investigation in case of hyperglycemia is advisable. Predisposing factors such as HLA genotype might explain why some individuals are at risk.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2/neu kinase domain mutations are found in approximately 1-4% of lung adenocarcinomas with a similar phenotype to tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Afatinib is a potent irreversible ErbB family blocker. We determined the tumor genomic status of the EGFR and HER2 genes in non- or light smokers with lung adenocarcinoma in patients who were entered into an exploratory Phase II study with afatinib. Five patients with a non-smoking history and metastatic lung adenocarcinomas bearing mutations in the kinase domain of HER2 gene were identified, three of which were evaluable for response. Objective response was observed in all three patients, even after failure of other EGFR- and/or HER2-targeted treatments; the case histories of these patients are described in this report. These findings suggest that afatinib is a potential novel treatment option for this subgroup of patients, even when other EGFR and HER2 targeting treatments have failed.