4.7 Article

Relevance of a systematic geriatric screening and assessment in older patients with cancer: results of a prospective multicentric study

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 5, Pages 1306-1312

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds619

Keywords

cancer; elderly; geriatric assessment; treatment decision

Categories

Funding

  1. Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, Belgium [NKP_24_005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To evaluate the large-scale feasibility and usefulness of geriatric screening and assessment in clinical oncology practice by assessing the impact on the detection of unknown geriatric problems, geriatric interventions and treatment decisions. Patients and methods: Eligible patients who had a malignant tumour were >= 70 years old and treatment decision had to be made. Patients were screened using G8; if abnormal (score <= 14/17) followed by Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). The assessment results were communicated to the treating physician using a predefined questionnaire to assess the topics mentioned above. Results: One thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven patients were included in 10 hospitals. Of these patients, 70.7% had an abnormal G8 score warranting a CGA. Physicians were aware of the assessment results at the time of treatment decision in two-thirds of the patients (n = 1115; 61.3%). The assessment detected unknown geriatric problems in 51.2% of patients. When the physician was aware of the assessment results at the time of decision making, geriatric interventions were planned in 286 patients (25.7%) and the treatment decision was influenced in 282 patients (25.3%). Conclusion: Geriatric screening and assessment in older patients with cancer is feasible at large scale and has a significant impact on the detection of unknown geriatric problems, leading to geriatric interventions and adapted treatment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available