Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, and the incidence of cancer increases with increasing age. From 1980 to 2003, the proportion of cancer deaths has increased, while deaths from heart disease and stroke has trended down, reflecting our aging population. In addition, data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program from 1998 to 2002 indicate that 56% of newly diagnosed cancer patients and 71% of cancer deaths occur in individuals greater than age 65. The number of older adults with a cancer diagnosis will continue to increase as the population ages and life expectancies increase. In the United States, it is estimated that by 2030 70% of cancer patients will be over the age of 65.
Breast cancer is a disease of aging, and its incidence increases with age (Figure 1). Approximately 1 in 125 women between the ages of 65 and 85 will develop breast cancer each year, as compared to 1 out of 390 women between the ages if 45 and 55. Given the increasing incidence of breast cancer with age and an increasing proportion of the US population over age 65, oncologists will be caring for an ever-larger number of elderly patients.
Breast cancer mortality also increases with increasing age (Figure 1). However, SEER data suggest that stage at diagnosis is higher only for patients over age 85. Clearly, other factors play a role in the increased breast cancer mortality with aging. Possible explanations include lower rates of screening mammography, less aggressive therapy after diagnosis, and the presence of comorbidity and frailty among older women.
As the proportion of adults over 65 increases, a growing number of frail elders will develop breast cancer. Oncology interventions for frail elders with breast cancer pose a particular challenge, as non–breast cancer-related illnesses are likely to be the major causes of mortality, minimizing the potential benefits of breast cancer therapy. The attendant toxicity of therapy must be carefully considered. This review will examine domains of frailty and explore assessment tools to help identify patients at risk of negative outcomes with breast cancer therapy. Appropriate therapeutic interventions for frail breast cancer patients and possible interventions to prevent progression to frailty will also be discussed.
Characteristics of Frailty
Frailty has no standardized definition, although as health-care professionals we may feel we can intuitively recognize frail patients. The American Geriatric Society has defined frailty as a "physiological syndrome, characterized by decreased reserve and diminished resistance to stressors, resulting from cumulative decline across multiple physiological systems, and causing vulnerability to adverse outcomes." Disease, inactivity, and physiologic changes with aging exhaust the inherent redundancy of muscular and neurologic backup systems and prevent a frail person from compensating in times of stress.
Frailty is a chronic condition, although an acute event such as stroke can contribute to its severity. Adverse outcomes from frailty include falls, injuries, susceptibility to illness, dependence, and institutionalization. Frailty increases the risk of death. Several factors contribute to frailty, including physiologic changes related to aging, chronic disease, decreased physical strength, and low levels of physical activity.[9,10]
Frailty can be independent of age or comorbidity.[10,11] Older adults show wide variations in physical function and disease, and chronologic age alone is an inadequate indicator of frailty. However, frailty is more common with increasing age, and the American Medical Association estimates that 40% of adults over age 80 are frail. Many clinicians consider individuals over 85 as inherently frail due to the physiologic changes that occur with aging.[13,14] Others consider age over 70 to be a trigger to further investigate for the presence of frailty.
Although the aging process is heterogeneous, universal physiologic changes described in Table 1 occur and can lead in time to decreased physiologic reserve in cardiac, respiratory, and renal function. Several neurologic changes also occur with aging, including decreased vision and neuropathy. Decrease in hematopoietic reserve and impaired immunosurveillance with aging may also influence tolerance of systemic cancer therapy. As a whole, these changes contribute to an increased risk for chemotherapy-associated side effects and death in older patients.[17,18]
Diminished muscle mass and strength are associated with decreased mobility, decreased ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs, Table 2), and a higher risk of hospitalization and nursing home admission. Contributing to age-associated sarcopenia are genetics; a reduced production of growth hormone, testosterone, and insulin-like growth factor type 1 (IGF-1); an increase in inflammatory cytokines; increased protein degradation; and decreased protein synthesis. In addition to age-related changes in mobility, other contributors to sarcopenia include lack of exercise and increased oxygen free radical production. Sarcopenia is not necessarily associated with a reduced body mass index—sarcopenic obesity may occur in up to 6 % of the elderly and can carry an even greater risk of adverse outcomes, especially in those who are less active.[22,23]
Progressive inflammation, a consistent finding with aging, has also been proposed as a mechanism for the development of frailty. C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels increase with age. An increase in IL-6 and D-dimer predict functional decline and mortality in community-dwelling elders over age 70. Individuals among the Cardiovascular Health Study cohort meeting the criteria for frailty had increased levels of C-reactive protein, factor VIII, and D-dimer compared to nonfrail individuals. The association of an increase in inflammatory markers with age and functional decline has led to the possibility of using biomarkers as indicators of frailty.
Comorbidity also contributes to frailty, and in general the more medical problems that exist, the more likely a patient is to be frail. Comorbid conditions that cause functional limitations and are expected to progress, such as cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, or diabetes, limit survival and are more likely to contribute to frailty. Elders with comorbidity are at increased risk for treatment-related complications and mortality.[28,29] Satariano and Ragland evaluated the effect of comorbidity on 3-year survival among women with primary breast cancer. Those with three or more comorbid conditions had a 20-fold higher rate of mortality from a cause other than breast cancer and a 4 times higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to women with no comorbid conditions.
Other contributors to frailty are the geriatric syndromes. Geriatric syndromes are considered easily recognized clinical presentations that have multifactorial etiologies and are associated with an increased risk for adverse outcomes.[30,31] They include dementia, polypharmacy, falls, incontinence, pressure ulcers, sensory impairment, and malnutrition. Cognition and dementia are critical issues in cancer management; individuals undergoing therapy need to have the cognitive capacity to take medications correctly and report side effects.
It is difficult to separate impaired physical function and disability from frailty as they are both contributors to and consequences of frailty. Frail individuals often have immobility, gait abnormalities, muscle weakness, minimal exercise tolerance, and poor balance. They may have difficulty performing ADLs and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), which are thought to be critical in the ability of elderly individuals to maintain function (Table 2). Tasks for independent living including those for self-care are important for quality of life. Conditions associated with frailty are listed in Table 3.
Tools for Geriatric and Frailty Assessment
Ideally, oncologists treating the elderly should be able to differentiate between a high-functioning elder, a patient who is currently functioning but is at risk for treatment complications, and those too frail to receive aggressive therapy. However, correctly identifying individuals who belong to these three groups is difficult. The importance of performance status has long been appreciated in oncology with development of the Karnofsky performance status scale over 50 years ago. Karnofsky and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)performance status may be insufficient to identify risk, and assessment tools to identify at-risk and frail elders are needed in oncology.
Criteria for defining frailty among the general population have been developed. Clinical criteria for frailty were adapted by the National Institute of Aging and the American Geriatric Society Expert Consensus in 2004. Using data from the Cardiovascular Health Study, a phenotype of frailty was operationalized. Individuals with 3 or more criteria were determined to be frail, and those with 1 to 2 criteria were considered prefrail (Table 4). At 3 years, the mortality rate was 18% for frail patients and 3% for the nonfrail. The prevalence of frailty increased with age and was greater in women than men. Compared to fit older subjects, those who were moderately or severely frail had an eightfold higher risk of institutionalization (relative risk [RR] = 8.6) and a sevenfold increased risk of death (RR = 7.3). Individuals defined as frail had a higher incidence of hospitalization and falls, progressive decline in the ability to complete ADLs, and decreased mobility. Those considered prefrail were at increased risk of becoming frail.
The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional, often interdisciplinary diagnostic approach used by geriatricians to care for the elderly. It measures several domains including comorbid medical conditions, use of medication, social support, functional status, cognition and nutritional states, and generally includes an assessment of ADLs and IADLs. Once assessments are made, the CGA is interpreted with a multidisciplinary approach, and interventions are implemented. Reviews of CGA have shown benefit in elderly individuals.
A CGA scale for elderly cancer patients has been developed by the Italian Group for Geriatric Oncology.[36,37] Repetto et al evaluated ECOG performance status and CGA in 363 elderly patients with cancer. Of patients felt to have a good performance status, 13% had two or more comorbidities, 9.3% had ADL impairment, and 37% had IADL limitations. Performance status alone missed impairment that was identified with CGA. Balducci and others evaluated a CGA in elderly patients and identified 18% as having dependence in one or more ADLs, 72% with dependence in one or more IADLs, 41% with polypharmacy, and 19% with malnutrition.[35,38]
A limitation of the CGA is the length of time it takes to complete, prompting researchers to develop shorter self-administered comprehensive assessments. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) is currently testing a cancer-specific geriatric assessment that includes self-assessment and health-care–directed components. In a pilot study, it was determined to take less than 30 minutes to complete.
The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) is a tool developed to identify community-living older adults at risk of functional decline and death. It includes one question for age and 12 items that assess self-reported health. The VES-13 has been pilot-tested as a screening tool in older adults with prostate cancer. Using the CGA as the gold standard, the VES-13 had 72.7% sensitivity and 85.7% specificity for CGA-detected deficits.
The authors have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.
1. Yancik R: Population aging and cancer: A cross-national concern. Cancer J 11:437-441, 2005.
2. Yancik R: Cancer burden in the aged: An epidemiologic and demographic overview. Cancer80:1273-1283, 1997.
3. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al (eds): SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2004. Bethesda, MD; National Cancer Insitiute. Based on November 2006 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER website, 2007. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/. Accessed Nov 11, 2007.
4. National Center for Health Statistics, United States Census Bureau. Vital Statistics of the United States. Hyattsville, MD; National Center for Health Statistics, 2001.
5. Yancik R, Ries LG, Yates JW: Breast cancer in aging women. A population-based study of contrasts in stage, surgery, and survival. Cancer 63:976-981, 1989.
6. Kimmick GG., Hughes KS, Muss HB: Breast cancer in older women, in Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, et al (eds): Diseases of the Breast, pp 1323-1338. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
7. Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Studenski S, et al: Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons: A consensus report. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:625-634, 2004.
8. Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Cavazzini C, et al: The frailty syndrome: A critical issue in geriatric oncology. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 46:127-137, 2003.
9. Cohen HJ: In search of the underlying mechanisms of frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 55:M706-M708, 2000.
10. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al: Frailty in older adults: Evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56:M146-M156, 2001.
11. Fried LP, Kronmal RA, Newman AB, et al: Risk factors for 5-year mortality in older adults: The Cardiovascular Health Study. JAMA 279:585-592, 1998.
12. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, et al: Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: Implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59:255-263, 2004.
13. Balducci L: Geriatric oncology: Challenges for the new century. Eur J Cancer 36:1741-1754, 2000.
14. Fried LP, Walston J: Frailiy and failure to thrive, in Hazzard WR, Blass JP, Ettinger WH, et al (eds): Principles of Geriatric Medicine and Geontology pp 1387-1402. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1999.
15. Rodin MB, Mohile SG: A practical approach to geriatric assessment in oncology. J Clin Oncol 25:1936-1944, 2007.
16. Hurria A, Cleary TA, Adelman RD: Cancer in the frail elderly, in Muss HB, Hunter C, Johnson KA (eds): Treatment and Management of Cancer in the Elderly, pp 539-557. New York, Taylor & Francis, 2006.
17. Muss HB, Woolf S, Berry D, et al: Adjuvant chemotherapy in older and younger women with lymph node-positive breast cancer. JAMA 293:1073-1081, 2005.
18. Muss HB, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al: Toxicity of older and younger patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B experience. J Clin Oncol 25:3699-3704, 2007.
19. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al: A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: Association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 49:M85-M94, 1994.
20. Abate M, Diloria A DiRenzo D, et al: Fraility in the elderly: The physical dimension. Europa Medicophysica 42:1-9, 2006.
21. Baumgartner RN, Wayne SJ, Waters DL, et al: Sarcopenic obesity predicts instrumental activities of daily living disability in the elderly. Obes Res 12:1995-2004, 2004.
22. Janssen I: Influence of sarcopenia on the development of physical disability: The Cardiovascular Health Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 54:56-62, 2006.
23. Visser M, Goodpaster BH, Kritchevsky SB, et al: Muscle mass, muscle strength, and muscle fat infiltration as predictors of incident mobility limitations in well-functioning older persons. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 60:324-333, 2005.
24. Ferrucci L, Corsi A, Lauretani F, et al: The origins of age-related proinflammatory state. Blood 105:2294-2299, 2005.
25. Walston J, McBurnie MA, Newman A, et al: Frailty and activation of the inflammation and coagulation systems with and without clinical comorbidities: Results from the Cardiovascular Health Study. Arch Intern Med 162:2333-2341, 2002.
26. Mitnitski AB, Song X, Rockwood K: The estimation of relative fitness and frailty in community-dwelling older adults using self-report data. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59:M627-M632, 2004.
27. Satariano WA, Ragland DR: The effect of comorbidity on 3-year survival of women with primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 120:104-110, 1994.
28. Satariano WA: Aging, comorbidity, and breast cancer survival: An epidemiologic view. Adv Exp Med Biol 330:1-11, 1993.
29. Bergman L, Dekker G, van Leeuwen FE, et al: The effect of age on treatment choice and survival in elderly breast cancer patients. Cancer 67:2227-2234, 1991.
30. Maas HA, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Olde Rikkert MG, et al: Comprehensive geriatric assessment and its clinical impact in oncology. Eur J Cancer 43:2161-2169, 2007.
31. Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME, et al: Geriatric syndromes: Clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric concept. J Am Geriatr Soc 55:780-791, 2007.
32. Hurria A, Lachs MS, Cohen HJ, et al: Geriatric assessment for oncologists: Rationale and future directions. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 59:211-217, 2006.
33. Karnofsky DA: Determining the extent of the cancer and clinical planning for cure. Cancer 22:730-734, 1968.
34. Walston J, Hadley EC, Ferrucci L, et al: Research agenda for frailty in older adults: Toward a better understanding of physiology and etiology: summary from the American Geriatrics Society/National Institute on Aging Research Conference on Frailty in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 54:991-1001, 2006.
35. Balducci L: The geriatric cancer patient: Equal benefit from equal treatment. Cancer Control 8:1-25, 2001.
36. Monfardini S, Ferrucci L, Fratino L, et al: Validation of a multidimensional evaluation scale for use in elderly cancer patients. Cancer 77:395-401, 1996.
37. Repetto L, Fratino L, Audisio RA, et al: Comprehensive geriatric assessment adds information to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in elderly cancer patients: An Italian Group for Geriatric Oncology Study. J Clin Oncol 20:494-502, 2002.
38. Balducci L, Extermann M: Management of cancer in the older person: A practical approach. Oncologist 5:224-237, 2000.
39. Hurria A, Gupta S, Zauderer M, et al: Developing a cancer-specific geriatric assessment: A feasibility study. Cancer 104:1998-2005, 2005.
40. Saliba D, Elliott M, Rubenstein LZ, et al: The Vulnerable Elders Survey: A tool for identifying vulnerable older people in the community. J Am Geriatr Soc 49:1691-1699, 2001.
41. Mohile SG, Bylow K, Dale W, et al: A pilot study of the vulnerable elders survey-13 compared with the comprehensive geriatric assessment for identifying disability in older patients with prostate cancer who receive androgen ablation. Cancer 109:802-810, 2007.
42. Gill TM, Gahbauer EA, Allore HG, et al: Transitions between frailty states among community-living older persons. Arch Intern Med 166:418-423, 2006.
43. Singh MA: Exercise comes of age: rationale and recommendations for a geriatric exercise prescription. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 57:M262-M282, 2002.
44. Leveille SG, Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, et al: Aging successfully until death in old age: opportunities for increasing active life expectancy. Am J Epidemiol 149:654-664, 1999.
45. Landi F, Cesari M, Onder G, et al: Physical activity and mortality in frail, community-living elderly patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59:833-837, 2004.
46. Barry BK, Carson RG: The consequences of resistance training for movement control in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59:730-754, 2004.
47. Taaffe DR: Sarcopenia—exercise as a treatment strategy. Aust Fam Physician 35:130-134, 2006.
48. Latham NK, Bennett DA, Stretton CM, et al: Systematic review of progressive resistance strength training in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59:48-61, 2004.
49. Seynnes O, Fiatarone Singh MA, et al: Physiological and functional responses to low-moderate versus high-intensity progressive resistance training in frail elders. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 59:503-509, 2004.
50. Extermann M, Meyer J, McGinnis M, et al: A comprehensive geriatric intervention detects multiple problems in older breast cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 49:69-75, 2004.
51. Arnoldi E, Dieli M, Mangia M, et al: Comprehensive geriatric assessment in elderly cancer patients: An experience in an outpatient population. Tumori 93:23-25, 2007, 2007.
52. McCorkle R, Strumpf NE, Nuamah IF, et al: A specialized home care intervention improves survival among older post-surgical cancer patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:1707-1713, 2000.
53. Akhtar SS, Allan SG, Rodger A, et al: A 10-year experience of tamoxifen as primary treatment of breast cancer in 100 elderly and frail patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 17:30-35, 1991.
54. Smith I, Dowsett M, on behalf of the IMPACT Trialists: Comparison of anastrozole versus tamoxifen alone and in combination as neoadjuvant treatment of ER+ operable breast cancer in postmenopausal women: The IMPACT Trial. Presented at the Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; San Antonio Tex; 2004.
55. Smith IE, Dowsett M: Aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 348:2431-2442, 2003.
56. Smith IE, Dowsett M, Ebbs SR, et al: Neoadjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer with anastrozole, tamoxifen, or both in combination: The Immediate Preoperative Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, or Combined With Tamoxifen (IMPACT) multicenter double-blind randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 23:5108-5116, 2005.
57. Ellis MJ, Coop A, Singh B, et al: Letrozole is more effective neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than tamoxifen for ErbB-1- and/or ErbB-2-positive, estrogen receptor- positive primary breast cancer: Evidence from a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 19:3808-3816, 2001.
58. Group: Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687-1717, 2005.
59. Witherby SM, Muss HB: Special issues related to breast cancer adjuvant therapy in older women. Breast 14:600-611, 2005.
60. Vogel CL, Cobleigh MA, Tripathy D, et al: Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:719-726, 2002.
61. Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, et al: Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer- treatment trials. N Engl J Med 341:2061-2067, 1999.
62. Sateren WB, Trimble EL, Abrams J, et al: How sociodemographics, presence of oncology specialists, and hospital cancer programs affect accrual to cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol 20:2109-2117, 2002.
63. Muss HB, Woolf S, Berry D, et al: Adjuvant chemotherapy in older and younger women with lymph node-positive breast cancer. JAMA 293:1073-1081, 2005.
64. Christman K, Muss HB, Case LD, et al: Chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer in the elderly. The Piedmont Oncology Association experience JAMA 268:57-62, 1992.
65. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al: Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 185:914-919, 1963.
66. Lawton MP, Brody EM: Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 9:179-186, 1969.