4.5 Article

Geriatric Assessment and Functional Decline in Older Patients with Lung Cancer

Journal

LUNG
Volume 195, Issue 5, Pages 619-626

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00408-017-0025-2

Keywords

Older; Lung cancer; Geriatric assessment; Functional decline

Funding

  1. National Cancer Plan, action 24 of the Belgian Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Older patients with lung cancer are a heterogeneous population making treatment decisions complex. This study aims to evaluate the value of geriatric assessment (GA) as well as the evolution of functional status (FS) in older patients with lung cancer, and to identify predictors associated with functional decline and overall survival (OS). Methods At baseline, GA was performed in patients >= 70 years with newly diagnosed lung cancer. FS measured by activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) was reassessed at follow-up to define functional decline and OS was collected. Predictors for functional decline and OS were determined. Results Two hundred and forty-five patients were included in this study. At baseline, GA deficiencies were present in all domains and ADL and IADL were impaired in 51 and 63% of patients, respectively. At follow-up, functional decline in ADL was observed in 23% and in IADL in 45% of patients. In multivariable analysis, radiotherapy was predictive for ADL decline. No other predictors for ADL or IADL decline were identified. Stage and baseline performance status were predictive for OS. Conclusions Older patients with lung cancer present with multiple deficiencies covering all geriatric domains. During treatment, functional decline is observed in almost half of the patients. None of the specific domains of the GA were predictive for functional decline or survival, probably because of the high impact of the aggressiveness of this tumor type leading to a poor prognosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available