Screening for Vulnerability in Older Cancer Patients: The ONCODAGE Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 2011
Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) has been validated for screening older cancer patients for a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). To identify a widely acceptable approach that encourages oncologists to screen older cancer patients for a CGA, we examined the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) and Karnofsky Index of Performance Status (KPS) scales' ability to identify abnormalities on a CGA and compared the performance of the two instruments with the VES-13.
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO, 2015
Screening tools are proposed to identify those older cancer patients in need of geriatric assessment (GA) and multidisciplinary approach. We aimed to update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on the use of screening tools. SIOG composed a task group to review, interpret and discuss evidence on the use of screening tools in older cancer patients. A systematic review was carried out and discussed by an expert panel, leading to a consensus statement on their use. Forty-four studies reporting on the use of 17 different screening tools in older cancer patients were identified. The tools most studied in older cancer patients are G8, Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST) and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13). Across all studies, the highest sensitivity was observed for: G8, fTRST, Oncogeriatric screen, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status, Senior Adult Oncology Program (SAOP) 2...
Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 2005
Background: As more and more cancers occur in elderly people, oncologists are increasingly confronted with the necessity of integrating geriatric parameters in the treatment of their patients. Methods: The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) created a task force to review the evidence on the use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in cancer patients. A systematic review of the evidence was conducted. Results: Several biological and clinical correlates of aging have been identified. Their relative weight and clinical usefulness is still poorly defined. There is strong evidence that a CGA detects many problems missed by a regular assessment in general geriatric and in cancer patients. There is also strong evidence that a CGA improves function and reduces hospitalization in the elderly. There is heterogeneous evidence that it improves survival and that it is cost-effective. There is corroborative evidence from a few studies conducted in cancer patients. Screening tools exist and were successfully used in settings such as the emergency room, but globally were poorly tested. The article contains recommendations for the use of CGA in research and clinical care for older cancer patients. Conclusions: A CGA, with or without screening, and with follow-up, should be used in older cancer patients, in order to detect unaddressed problems, improve their functional status, and possibly their survival. The task force cannot recommend any specific tool or approach above others at this point and general geriatric experience should be used.
The Oncologist, 2016
Background. A multidimensional geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended in older cancer patients to inventory health problems and tailor treatment decisions accordingly but requires considerable time and human resources. The G8 is among the most sensitive screening tools for selecting patients warranting a full GA but has limited specificity. We sought to develop and validate an optimized version of the G8. Patients and Methods. We used a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥70 years referred to geriatricians for GA (2007–2012: n = 729 [training set]; 2012–2014: n = 414 [validation set]). Abnormal GA was defined as at least one impaired domain across seven validated tests. Multiple correspondence analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and bootstrapped internal validation were performed sequentially. Results. The final model included six independent predictors for abnormal GA: weight loss, cognition/mood, performance status, self-rated health status, polypharmacy (≥6 medi...
JCO Oncology Practice
PURPOSE: For patients with cancer who are older than 65 years, the 2018 ASCO Guideline recommends geriatric assessment (GA) be performed. However, there are limited data on providers’ practices using GA. Therefore, ASCO’s Geriatric Oncology Task Force conducted a survey of providers to assess practice patterns and barriers to GA. METHODS: Cancer providers treating adult patients including those ≥ 65 years completed an online survey. Questions included those asking about awareness of ASCO’s Geriatric Oncology Guideline (2018), use of validated GA tools, and perceived barriers to using GA. Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons between those aware of the Guideline and those who were not were conducted. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Participants (N = 1,277) responded between April 5 and June 5, 2019. Approximately half (53%) reported awareness of the Guideline. The most frequently used GA tools, among those aware of the Guideline and those who wer...
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2014
To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. Methods SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment-related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care. Results GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another. Conclusion There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.
Factors leading oncologists to refer elderly cancer patients for geriatric assessment
Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 2011
We characterized elderly cancer patients referred to an oncogeriatric unit and sought factors warranting referral for geriatric assessment before or during cancer therapy. Materials and methods: We reviewed the files of all consecutive elderly patients seen from October 2006 to April 2008 in our primary-care oncogeriatric unit. All subjects had a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Patients evaluated before oncologic decision-making were compared to those evaluated after cancer therapy had started. Results: We studied 65 patients with a median age of 82.4 years (range 71-95). The most frequent malignancies were breast (29.0%), lung (24.6%) and colorectal tumors (7.6%). Thirtynine patients (60%) had metastatic disease. One-quarter of patients had one or more disabilities on the Activities of Daily Living scale, more than half (53.8%) were classified as dependent on the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale, and nearly half (45.3%) had cognitive dysfunction. Thirty-five patients were evaluated before oncologic decision-making and thirty during cancer treatment. Recent weight loss >10% (32.3% vs 15.3%; p = 0.031) was more frequent among patients who had a geriatric assessment before cancer therapy. These latter patients were also taking fewer drugs (4.8 vs 6.1; p = 0.036) and were more likely to receive adjusted cancer therapy (41.5% vs 26.1%; p = 0.051). Conclusion: Weight loss was the main feature leading oncologists to refer elderly cancer patients for geriatric assessment. Patients who had a geriatric assessment before oncologic decision-making were more likely to receive adjusted cancer therapy.
Comprehensive geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer: Two steps forward?
Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 2013
Multiple organizations, including the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, have recommended that all older adults (usually defined as age 70 or older) with cancer undergo a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) at the time of diagnosis and/or prior to treatment decision-making. 1,2 CGA has three key goals in the oncology setting:
Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in the Older Adult with Cancer: A Review
European Urology Focus, 2017
Context: The number of older adults with cancer is expected to increase rapidly in the upcoming decades. Aging is heterogeneous and chronological age is often not reflective of biological age. A comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an in-depth assessment of multiple domains of health that results in better assessment of a patient's overall health and fitness and allows directed intervention to improve patient outcomes. Objective: To review the value of CGA for older adults with cancer, CGA composition and tools that can be utilized, and the feasibility of including CGA in oncologic practice. Evidence acquisition: The currently available evidence on CGA for older adults with cancer was reviewed. Evidence synthesis: A CGA can highlight unidentified health problems and identify patients at higher risk of mortality, functional decline, surgical complications, chemotherapy intolerance, and chemotherapy toxicity. It has been shown that CGA is feasible in the oncology clinic, but geriatric screening tools may be useful to specifically identify patients who would benefit from a full CGA. Conclusions: CGA is feasible and can identify patients at higher risk of adverse events such as mortality, functional decline, surgical complications, and chemotherapy toxicity. Clinicians should consider incorporating CGA when assessing and caring for older adults with cancer. Patient summary: In this report, we review the benefits of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), a detailed in-depth assessment that identifies health problems not typically identified during routine assessments, for older adults with cancer. We describe the different domains of the CGA and suggest tools to utilize, as well as ways to incorporate CGA into the cancer care setting.