4.7 Article

The Value of Geriatric Assessments in Predicting Treatment Tolerance and All-Cause Mortality in Older Patients With Cancer

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 1439-1449

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0186

关键词

Comprehensive geriatric assessment; Prognostication; Elderly; Treatment tolerance

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Awareness of the use of geriatric assessments for older patients with cancer is increasing. The aim of this review is to summarize all available evidence on the association between geriatric assessments and relevant oncologic outcomes. Method. A systematic search was conducted in Medline and Embase of studies on geriatric assessment in oncology, focusing on the association between baseline assessment and outcome. Results. The literature search identified 2008 reports; 51 publications from 37 studies were selected for inclusion in the review. The quality of studies was heterogeneous and generally poor. A median of five geriatric conditions were assessed per study (interquartile range: 4 - 8). Little consistency was found in the results of the studies. Furthermore, different tools appear to be predictive depending on the outcome measure: frailty, nutritional status, and comorbidity assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics were predictive for all-cause mortality; frailty was predictive for toxicity of chemotherapy; cognitive impairment and activities of daily living impairment were predictive for chemotherapy completion; and instrumental activities of daily living impairment was predictive for perioperative complications. Conclusion. Although various geriatric conditions appear to be of some value in predicting outcome in elderly patients with cancer, the results are too inconsistent to guide treatment decisions. Further research is needed to elucidate the role of geriatric assessments in the oncologic decision-making process for these patients. The Oncologist 2012; 17: 1439-1449

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