This study will address the prevalence of pre-therapeutic sarcopenia (PS) and its clinical impact during cancer treatment among adult cancer patients ≥ 18 years of age. A meta-analysis (MA) with random-effect models was performed via a MEDLINE systematic review, according to the PRISMA statement, focusing on articles published before February 2022 that reported observational studies and clinical trials on the prevalence of PS and the following outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), post-operative complications (POC), toxicities (TOX), and nosocomial infections (NI). A total of 65,936 patients (mean age: 45.7–85 y) with various cancer sites and extensions and various treatment modes were included. Mainly defined by CT scan-based loss of muscle mass only, the pooled prevalence of PS was 38.0%. The pooled relative risks were 1.97, 1.76, 2.70, 1.47, and 1.76 for OS, PFS, POC, TOX, and NI, respectively (moderate-to-high heterogeneity, I²: 58–85%). Consensus-based algorithm definitions of sarcopenia, integrating low muscle mass and low levels of muscular strength and/or physical performance, lowered the prevalence (22%) and heterogeneity (I² < 50%). They also increased the predictive values with RRs ranging from 2.31 (OS) to 3.52 (POC). PS among cancer patients is prevalent and strongly associated with poor outcomes during cancer treatment, especially when considering a consensus-based algorithm approach.

The survival rate of multiple myeloma (MM) patients has drastically increased recently as a result of the wide treatment options now available. Younger patients truly benefit from these innovations as they can support more intensive treatment, such as autologous stem cell transplant or multiple drug association (triplet, quadruplet). The emergence of immunotherapy allowed new combinations principally based on monoclonal anti-CD38 antibodies for these patients. Still, the optimal induction treatment has not been found yet. While consolidation is still debated, maintenance treatment is now well acknowledged to prolong survival. Lenalidomide monotherapy is the only drug approved in that setting, but many innovations are expected. Older patients, now logically named not transplant-eligible, also took advantage of these breakthrough innovations as most of the recent drugs have a more acceptable safety profile than previous cytotoxic agents. For this heterogenous subgroup, geriatric assessment has become an essential tool to identify frail patients and provide tailored strategies. At relapse, options are now numerous, especially for patients who were not treated with lenalidomide, or not refractory at least. Concerning lenalidomide refractory patients, approved combinations are lacking, but many trials are ongoing to fill that space. Moreover, innovative therapeutics are increasingly being developed with modern immunotherapy, such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CAR-T cells), bispecific antibodies, or antibody–drug conjugates. For now, these treatments are usually reserved to heavily pre-treated patients with a poor outcome. MM drug classes have tremendously extended from historical alkylating agents to current dominant associations with proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and monoclonal anti-CD38/anti SLAMF7 antibodies. Plus, in only a couple of years, several new classes will enter the MM armamentarium, such as cereblon E3 ligase modulators (CELMoDs), selective inhibitors of nuclear export, and peptide–drug conjugates. Among the questions that will need to be answered in the years to come is the position of these new treatments in the therapeutic strategy, as well as the role of minimal residual disease-driven strategies which will be a key issue to elucidate. Through this review, we chose to enumerate and comment on the most recent advances in MM therapeutics which have undergone major transformations over the past decade.

This study assesses the efficacy of Geriatric Assessment (GA)-driven interventions and follow-up on six-month mortality, functional, and nutritional status in older patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). HNC patients aged 65 years or over were included between November 2013 and September 2018 by 15 Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) and maxillofacial surgery departments at 13 centers in France. The study was of an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled, and parallel-group design, with independent outcome assessments. The patients were randomized 1:1 to benefit from GA-driven interventions and follow-up versus standard of care. The interventions consisted in a pre-therapeutic GA, a standardized geriatric intervention, and follow-up, tailored to the cancer-treatment plan for 24 months. The primary outcome was a composite criterion including six-month mortality, functional impairment (fall in the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score ≥2), and weight loss ≥10%. Among the patients included (n = 499), 475 were randomized to the experimental (n = 238) or control arm (n = 237). The median age was 75.3 years [70.4–81.9]; 69.5% were men, and the principal tumor site was oral cavity (43.9%). There were no statistically significant differences regarding the primary endpoint (n = 98 events; 41.0% in the experimental arm versus 90 (38.0%); p = 0.53), or for each criterion (i.e., death (31 (13%) versus 27 (11.4%); p = 0.48), weight loss of ≥10% (69 (29%) versus 65 (27.4%); p = 0.73) and fall in ADL score ≥2 (9 (3.8%) versus 13 (5.5%); p = 0.35)). In older patients with HNC, GA-driven interventions and follow-up failed to improve six-month overall survival, functional, and nutritional status.

The present study explored the existing literature to describe the outcomes of surgical and regional treatments for colorectal cancer metastases (mCRC) in older patients. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published since 2000 that investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of regional treatments (surgical or non-surgical) for mCRC in patients aged ≥65 years. Pooled data analyses were conducted by calculating the risk ratio (RR), mean differences (MD) and hazard ratio (HR) between older and younger patients or between two different approaches in older patients. After screening 266 articles, 29 were included in this review. These studies reported the outcomes of surgery (n = 19) and non-surgical local ablation treatments (n = 3) for CRC metastases in older vs. younger patients or compared the outcomes of different interventions in older patients (n = 7). When comparing older vs. younger patients undergoing liver surgery for mCRC, pooled data analysis showed higher postoperative mortality [RR = 2.53 (95%CI: 2.00–3.21)] and shorter overall survival [HR = 1.17 (95%CI: 1.07–1.18)] in older patients, whereas no differences in operative outcomes, postoperative complications and disease-free survival were found. When comparing laparoscopy vs. open surgery for liver resection in older mCRC patients, laparoscopy was associated with fewer postoperative complications [RR = 0.27 (95%CI: 0.10–0.73)]. Liver resection for mCRC should not be disregarded a priori in older patients, who show similar operative and postoperative outcomes as younger patients. However, clinicians should consider that they are at increased risk of postoperative mortality and have a worse overall survival, which may reflect comorbidities and frailty.

Background: Older patients with cancer require specific and individualized management. The 3-group Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) based on the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) has shown a predictive interest in terms of mortality. The objective of our study was to assess the prognostic value of MPI for 1-year mortality in an external prospective French cohort of elderly patients with cancer. Methods: From March 2015 to March 2017 a prospective single-center cohort study enrolled all patients with cancer, aged 75 years and older referred to the geriatric oncology clinic. We used a proportional hazard model for 1-year mortality adjusted for age, sex, tumor sites and metastatic status. C-statistics were used to assess the incremental predictive value of MPI index to these risk factors. Results: overall, 433 patients underwent CGA with MPI (women 42%; mean age 82.8 ± 4.8 years). The most common tumor sites were prostate (23%), skin (17%), colorectum (15%) and breast (12%); 29% of patients had a metastatic disease; 231 patients (53%) belonged to the “MPI-1” group, 172 (40%) to the “MPI-2” group and 30 patients were classified in the “MPI-3” group. One-year mortality rate was 32% (23% in MPI-1, 41% in MPI-2 and 53% in MPI-3, p = 0.024). All domains of MPI except cognition and living status were significantly associated with mortality at one-year, as well as tumor sites and metastatic status. Higher MPI was associated with a higher mortality risk (adjusted HR 1.56 [95%CI 1.70–2.09] and 1.72 [1.33–2.22] for MPI groups 2 and 3 compared to 1; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In addition to established risk factors, MPI improves risk prediction of 1-year mortality. This practical prognostic tool may help to optimize management of these vulnerable patients.