4.1 Article

Determination of an adequate screening tool for identification of vulnerable elderly head and neck cancer patients treated with radio(chemo)therapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC ONCOLOGY
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 24-32

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2011.11.006

关键词

Head and neck cancer; Elderly; Comprehensive geriatric assessment; Screening instrument; Vulnerable Elders Survey-13; G8

资金

  1. Belgian Federal Government [NKP_24_018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We evaluated two proposed screening tools, the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) and the G8, to identify patients who could benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Materials and Methods: All consecutive patients aged >= 65 years with primary head and neck cancer were assessed with VES-13, G8 and CGA. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC)-analysis was used to determine diagnostic performance of both screening instruments. Results: Fifty-one patients were recruited, of which 39.2%, 66.7% and 68.6%, were defined vulnerable when evaluated with VES-13, G8 and CGA, respectively. The area under the ROC-curves (AUC +/- SE) of VES-13 (0.889 +/- 0.045) and G8 (0.909 +/- 0.040) did not significantly differ (P=0.7083). A sensitivity and specificity of respectively 57.1% and 100% for VES-13 (cut-off >= 3) and 85.7% and 75.0% for G8 (cut-off <= 14) was obtained. The combined score VES-13+(maximum-G8) (AUC=0.971 +/- 0.019) showed a superior AUC to G8 (P=0.0242) and VES-13 (P=0.0237). The Most optimal cut-off score of 5 for the combined test resulted in a sensitivity of 91.4% and a specificity of 93.8%. Positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 51.6%, 88.2% and 70.6%, and 97.0% and 83.3% for the VES-13, G8 and combined test respectively. Conclusion: Both tools were found to have good diagnostic performance. However, at the proposed cut-off scores, our data suggest the G8 as the most optimal screening tool. Moreover, the combined tool could represent an interesting alternative. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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