Evidence Hub

Predictors of poor treatment tolerability in older patients receiving fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy: A prospective cohort study

J. Baltussen, J. Knikman, N. D. de Glas, M. de With, A. Baars, G. Creemers, H. Droogendijk, E. Fiets et al.

Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 2026

194 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Although fluoropyrimidines are widely prescribed to older patients, studies investigating predictors for chemotherapy intolerance in this patient population are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to identify predictors of poor treatment tolerability in older patients receiving fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥70 years who received fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy were selected from the prospective, multicentre, non-randomized Alpe2U study. Before treatment initiation, participants underwent a geriatric assessment investigating the somatic, nutritional, functional, and mental domains. Predictors of the composite endpoint "poor treatment tolerability," defined as either Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 3-5 chemotherapy-related toxicity, dose reduction, or treatment discontinuation within the first two cycles, were analysed using uni- and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 194 included patients, median age was 75 (interquartile range 73-79) years and the most common tumour types were colorectal (60%) and esophagogastric (19%) cancer. Most patients (89%) received capecitabine-based chemotherapy. Poor treatment tolerability within the first two cycles was seen in 31% of patients. In multivariable analyses, associations with poor treatment tolerability were found for deficits in 3-4 geriatric domains compared with 0 deficits (odds ratio [OR] 4.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-14.97, p…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 194 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free