Survey Predicts Tolerance to Chemotherapy for Older Patients

The answers to eleven questions help individuals aged 65 years and older determine the risk of a severe to potentially fatal reaction to chemotherapy

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The elderly—especially the very old—are the fastest-growing group of cancer patients in the U.S., according to an article written by Claudia Wallis in the December 2014 Scientific American. Determining which older patients can benefit from chemotherapy—and which ones lack the resilience to tolerate it—have therefore become increasingly urgent issues.

Arti Hurria of the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and colleagues have devised and tested a tool for determining chemotherapy tolerance in older patients. “It’s 11 questions and it’s not hard to do,” says Hurria, who just completed a two-year term as president of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology.

The questions and the scoring for each response appear below.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Risk Factor

Score

Age 72 or greater

2

Cancer type: gastrointestinal or genitourinary

2

Chemotherapy dosing: standard dose

2

More than one chemotherapy drug

2

Hemoglobin less than 11 grams per deciliter for males or less than 10 grams per deciliter for females

3

Creatine clearance (Jelliffe formula—ideal weight): less than 34 milliliters per minute

3

Hearing: described as fair or worse

2

Number of falls in past six months: one or more

3

Needs assistance with taking medications

1

Limited in walking one block

2

Decreased social activity because of physical or emotional health

1


A score of 0 to 5 means the patient has a low risk of experiencing severe toxicity from chemotherapy, 6 to 9 indicates about a 50 percent risk and 10 to 19 indicates a high risk of developing a severe or even fatal reaction to chemotherapy.

To learn more about the research behind this 11-question survey, click here.

A more detailed geriatric assessment can be found here, courtesy of the Cancer and Aging Research Group.

Source: "Predicting Chemotherapy Toxicity in Older Adults with Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Study," by Arti Hurria et al in Journal of Clinical Oncology; Vol. 29, Issue 25, pages 3457–346. September 1, 2011.

Christine Gorman is a health and science writer.

More by Christine Gorman
Scientific American Magazine Vol 311 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Survey Predicts Tolerance to Chemotherapy for Older Patients” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 311 No. 6 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican122014-6nNrVgCuUxWwAfhFbJWl4h

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe