BACKGROUND: As more and more cancers occur in elderly people, oncologists are increasingly confronted with the necessity of integrating geriatric parameters in the treatment of their patients. METHODS: The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) created a task force to review the evidence on the use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in cancer patients. A systematic review of the evidence was conducted. RESULTS: Several biological and clinical correlates of aging have been identified. Their relative weight and clinical usefulness is still poorly defined. There is strong evidence that a CGA detects many problems missed by a regular assessment in general geriatric and in cancer patients. There is also strong evidence that a CGA improves function and reduces hospitalization in the elderly. There is heterogeneous evidence that it improves survival and that it is cost-effective. There is corroborative evidence from a few studies conducted in cancer patients. Screening tools exist and were successfully used in settings such as the emergency room, but globally were poorly tested. The article contains recommendations for the use of CGA in research and clinical care for older cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: A CGA, with or without screening, and with follow-up, should be used in older cancer patients, in order to detect unaddressed problems, improve their functional status, and possibly their survival. The task force cannot recommend any specific tool or approach above others at this point and general geriatric experience should be used.
BACKGROUND: As more and more cancers occur in elderly people, oncologists are increasingly confronted with the necessity of integrating geriatric parameters in the treatment of their patients. METHODS: The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) created a task force to review the evidence on the use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in cancerpatients. A systematic review of the evidence was conducted. RESULTS: Several biological and clinical correlates of aging have been identified. Their relative weight and clinical usefulness is still poorly defined. There is strong evidence that a CGA detects many problems missed by a regular assessment in general geriatric and in cancerpatients. There is also strong evidence that a CGA improves function and reduces hospitalization in the elderly. There is heterogeneous evidence that it improves survival and that it is cost-effective. There is corroborative evidence from a few studies conducted in cancerpatients. Screening tools exist and were successfully used in settings such as the emergency room, but globally were poorly tested. The article contains recommendations for the use of CGA in research and clinical care for older cancerpatients. CONCLUSIONS: A CGA, with or without screening, and with follow-up, should be used in older cancerpatients, in order to detect unaddressed problems, improve their functional status, and possibly their survival. The task force cannot recommend any specific tool or approach above others at this point and general geriatric experience should be used.
Authors: Ralph Simanek; Michael Wuensch; Roland Edlinger; Bernhard Hammerl-Ferrari; Ludwig Kramer; Klaus Geissler Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Justin P Turner; Sepehr Shakib; Nimit Singhal; Jonathon Hogan-Doran; Robert Prowse; Sally Johns; J Simon Bell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-03-02 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Taiwo Adesoye; Oluwatowo Babayemi; Lauren M Postlewait; Sarah M DeSnyder; Susie X Sun; Wendy A Woodward; Naoto T Ueno; Kelly K Hunt; Anthony Lucci; Mediget Teshome Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Megan A Feng; Daniel T McMillan; Karen Crowell; Hyman Muss; Matthew E Nielsen; Angela B Smith Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2014-07-05 Impact factor: 2.192