Survival scores are important for personalized treatment of bone metastases. Elderly patients are considered a separate group. Therefore, a specific score was developed for these patients. Elderly patients (≥65 years) irradiated for bone metastases were randomly assigned to the test (n = 174) or validation (n = 174) cohorts. Thirteen factors were retrospectively analyzed for survival. Factors showing significance (p < 0.05) or a trend (p < 0.06) in the multivariate analysis were used for the score. Based on 6-month survival rates, prognostic groups were formed. The score was compared to an existing tool developed in patients of any age. In the multivariate analysis, performance score, tumor type, and visceral metastases showed significance and gender was a trend. Three groups were designed (17, 18–25 and 27–28 points) with 6-month survival rates of 0%, 51%, and 100%. In the validation cohort, these rates were 9%, 55%, and 86%. Comparisons of prognostic groups between both cohorts did not reveal significant differences. In the test cohort, positive predictive values regarding death ≤6 and survival ≥6 months were 100% with the new score vs. 80% and 88% with the existing tool. The new score was more accurate demonstrating the importance of specific scores for elderly patients.

Survival scores facilitate personalized cancer treatment. Due to demographic changes, very elderly patients are more prevalent than in the past. A score was developed in 94 patients aged ≥ 80 years undergoing whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases. Dose fractionation, treatment period, age, sex, performance score (ECOG-PS), tumor type, count of lesions, metastases outside the brain, and interval tumor diagnosis to radiotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. Independent predictors of survival were used for the score. Based on individual scoring points obtained from 3-month survival rates, prognostic groups were designed. Additionally, the score was compared to an existing tool developed in patients ≥ 65 years. ECOG-PS, count of lesions, and extra-cranial metastases were independent prognostic factors. Three groups were created (7, 10, and 13–16 points) with 3-month survival of 6%, 25%, and 67% (p < 0.001), respectively. Positive predictive values (PPVs) regarding death ≤ 3 and survival ≥ 3 months were 94% and 67% (new score) vs. 96% and 48% (existing tool), respectively. PPVs for survival ≥1 and ≥2 months were 88% and 79% vs. 63% and 58%, respectively. Both tools were accurate in predicting death ≤2, ≤3, and ≤6 months. The new score was more precise regarding death ≤1 month and survival (all time periods) and appeared preferable. However, it still needs to be validated.

Background/Objectives: A symptom-based scoring system (0–9 points) for the identification of radiation pneumonitis was previously evaluated in lung cancer patients without age restrictions. A threshold of five points appeared optimal to detect pneumonitis. Since elderly patients have a higher pneumonitis risk, this threshold may not be valid for this group. The POLCAR trial evaluated performance and threshold selection in elderly patients. Methods: Diagnostic discrimination was assessed by receiver operating characteristic analysis. The areas under the curve (AUCs) and a null hypothesis that AUC equaled 0.7 were evaluated. Youden indices were used to identify candidate thresholds. In addition, the change from baseline and patient satisfaction were assessed. The dissatisfaction rate should be <20%. Results: Thirty new patients, plus 31 patients from another prospective trial with an almost identical design, qualified for analyses. The AUC for the pneumonitis score was 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.73–0.97). The highest Youden index (0.535) was observed for a threshold of four points. A threshold of five points led to a similar Youden index, a lower sensitivity, and higher specificity. An increase from the baseline by two points had a Youden index of 0.566 and a sensitivity of 100%, while an increase by three points had a Youden index of 0.550 and a specificity of 92.5%. Statistically superior discrimination for the change-from-baseline approach was not observed. The dissatisfaction rate was 5.4%. Conclusions: The scoring system showed good discrimination and high acceptance by patients. A threshold of four points appeared appropriate use in routine screening for the early detection of pneumonitis, whereas the change from baseline was considered useful as an exploratory tool when baseline data were available. Since only eight pneumonitis events occurred, threshold estimates require external validation.

Background: Radiation therapy with or without systemic treatment for lung cancer can cause adverse reactions, e.g., fatigue. Affected patients may experience a decrease in physical activity and, as a consequence, be unable to receive the complete assigned treatment. Physical exercise may be helpful. A benefit of exercise regarding completion of systemic treatment and quality of life was previously suggested. Irradiated patients may benefit as well. A smartphone-based app reminding patients to make a minimum number of steps might positively influence physical activity. The prototype of an app called “Step Reminder” was recently finalized. The randomized APPAREL trial (NCT07627022) evaluates whether this app can improve physical activity during irradiation for lung cancer. Methods: The primary endpoint of this phase 2 trial focuses on the within-patient change regarding the mean number of daily steps (week 5 minus week 1). Secondary objectives include satisfaction with the application and its impact on the perception of digital health technology. Patients are randomized 1:1 to be treated with a standard approach (conventionally fractionated irradiation with or without systemic treatment) supported by the “Step Reminder” app (Arm A) or standard treatment without the app (Arm B). The app provides reminders several times per day to walk a pre-defined number of steps. To make sure that the required 28 patients are included in the primary analysis population (full analysis set), 32 patients have to be randomized. Results: At this stage, results are not available. Conclusions: It is expected that the app will have a positive effect on the patients’ physical activity (number of steps).