Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Are the chronological age cutoffs used in clinical oncology guidelines biologically meaningful?

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology volume 19, pages 745–746 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Age is one of the strongest risk factors for cancer and also affects tumour biology, treatment recommendations and response to therapy. Although clinical oncology guidelines advocate against classifying patients on the basis of chronological age alone, most studies and published guidelines use discrete age cutoffs, often heterogeneously. Herein, we discuss age cutoffs from a historical and biological perspective, focusing on breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Carleton, N. et al. Personalising therapy for early-stage oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in older women. Lancet Healthy Longev. 3, e54–e66 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Herck, Y. et al. Is cancer biology different in older patients? Lancet Healthy Longev. 2, e663–e677 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Biganzoli, L. et al. Updated recommendations regarding the management of older patients with breast cancer: a joint paper from the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Lancet Oncol. 22, e327–e340 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gradishar, W. J. et al. Breast cancer, version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 20, 691–722 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dotan, E. et al. NCCN Guidelines® insights: older adult oncology, version 1.2021. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 19, 1006–1019 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frequently Asked Questions, Age 65 Retirement. US Social Security Administration https://www.ssa.gov/history/age65.html (2022).

  7. Shah, Y. et al. Pan-cancer analysis reveals molecular patterns associated with age. Cell Rep. 37, 110100 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Furman, D. et al. Chronic inflammation in the etiology of disease across the life span. Nat. Med. 25, 1822–1832 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sayed, N. et al. An inflammatory aging clock (iAge) based on deep learning tracks multimorbidity, immunosenescence, frailty and cardiovascular aging. Nat Aging 1, 598–615 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ludmir, E. B. et al. Factors associated with age disparities among cancer clinical trial participants. JAMA Oncol. 5, 1769–1773 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

N.C. receives funding from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (award number 1F30CA264963-01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Women’s Cancer Research Center, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Neil Carleton & Priscilla F. McAuliffe

  2. Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Priscilla F. McAuliffe

Authors
  1. Neil Carleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priscilla F. McAuliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priscilla F. McAuliffe.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carleton, N., McAuliffe, P.F. Are the chronological age cutoffs used in clinical oncology guidelines biologically meaningful?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 19, 745–746 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00684-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00684-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer