4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Frailty: An outcome predictor for elderly gynecologic oncology patients

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 126, Issue 1, Pages 20-24

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.019

Keywords

Elderly; Frailty; Ovarian cancer; Complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. The objective of this pilot study was to determine if frailty predicts surgical complications among elderly women undergoing gynecologic oncology procedures. Methods. A cohort of gynecologic oncology patients age >= 65, undergoing surgery between March and December 2011 was identified. Frailty was evaluated using a validated assessment tool. The primary outcome measure was 30 day postoperative complication rate. Results. Forty women were approached for study entry and 37 (92%) enrolled. The mean age was 73 years (range 65-95). The majority of women had a malignancy and underwent a major abdominal surgical procedure. Twenty-one women (57%) were not frail, 10 (27%) were intermediately frail and 6 (16%) were frail. There was no difference in age or prevalence of medical comorbidities between groups. Frail women had a significantly higher BMI compared to intermediately frail and not frail women, (36.0, 31.5 and 26.1 kg/m(2), p = 0.02). The rate of 30-day surgical complications increased with frailty score and was 24%, versus 67% for women who were not frail as compared to the frail (p = 0.04). Conclusions. Pre-operative frailty assessment is well accepted by gynecologic oncology patients and feasible in a clinic setting. Frail women had a higher BMI, indicating that low body weight is not a marker for frailty, and had a significantly higher rate of 30-day postoperative complications in this pilot study. Initial findings support the concept of measuring frailty as a possible predictor for postoperative morbidity that will allow for improved patient counseling and decision making. (c) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available