4.7 Review

International Society of Geriatric Oncology Consensus on Geriatric Assessment in Older Patients With Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 32, 期 24, 页码 2595-2603

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8347

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Belgian Cancer Plan
  2. Belgian Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment [KPC 24 B 026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose 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. (C) 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据