M J Molina-Garrido1, C Guillén-Ponce. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, General Hospital Virgen de la Luz in Cuenca, Spain. mjmolinagarrido@hotmail.com
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a key component of the treatment approach for older cancer patients. The goals of the current study were to develop a brief but non-self-administered cancer-specific geriatric assessment and to determine its feasibility, as measured by (1) the length of time to completion and (2) patient satisfaction. METHODS: The literature was reviewed to select validated scales for geriatric assessment across the following domains: functional status, co-morbidity, cognition, social support and risk of malnutrition. Oncologic patients older than 70 years were included in the study. RESULTS: The instrument was completed by 99 patients (mean age, 78.65 yrs). The mean time to completion of that was 12.9 min (range, 9.5-20.5 min). Most patients were satisfied with its length (63.6%), and most considered it fairly easy to complete (69.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The designed CGA was accepted by most patients and was not perceived to be overly time-consuming.
INTRODUCTION: The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a key component of the treatment approach for older cancerpatients. The goals of the current study were to develop a brief but non-self-administered cancer-specific geriatric assessment and to determine its feasibility, as measured by (1) the length of time to completion and (2) patient satisfaction. METHODS: The literature was reviewed to select validated scales for geriatric assessment across the following domains: functional status, co-morbidity, cognition, social support and risk of malnutrition. Oncologic patients older than 70 years were included in the study. RESULTS: The instrument was completed by 99 patients (mean age, 78.65 yrs). The mean time to completion of that was 12.9 min (range, 9.5-20.5 min). Most patients were satisfied with its length (63.6%), and most considered it fairly easy to complete (69.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The designed CGA was accepted by most patients and was not perceived to be overly time-consuming.
Authors: E Soto-Perez-de-Celis; R Cordoba; R Gironés; T Karnakis; I Paredero; Y Chavarri-Guerra; A P Navarrete-Reyes; J A Avila-Funes Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Arti Hurria; Constance T Cirrincione; Hyman B Muss; Alice B Kornblith; William Barry; Andrew S Artz; Linda Schmieder; Rafat Ansari; William P Tew; Douglas Weckstein; Jeffrey Kirshner; Kayo Togawa; Kurt Hansen; Vani Katheria; Richard Stone; Ilene Galinsky; John Postiglione; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: María Vallet-Regí; Miguel Manzano; Leocadio Rodriguez-Mañas; Marta Checa López; Matti Aapro; Lodovico Balducci Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-02-20
Authors: Heidi D Klepin; Ann M Geiger; Janet A Tooze; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Jeff D Williamson; Leslie R Ellis; Denise Levitan; Timothy S Pardee; Scott Isom; Bayard L Powell Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: M E Rougé-Bugat; S Gérard; L Balardy; O Beyne-Rauzy; N Boussier; A Perrin; S Oustric; B Vellas; F Nourhashémi Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2013 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Kerri M Clough-Gorr; Lea Noti; Peter Brauchli; Richard Cathomas; Marius R Fried; Gillian Roberts; Andreas E Stuck; Felicitas Hitz; Ulrich Mey Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 2.796