BACKGROUND: The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) has been validated for screening older cancer patients for a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). To identify a widely acceptable approach that encourages oncologists to screen older cancer patients for a CGA, we examined the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) and Karnofsky Index of Performance Status (KPS) scales' ability to identify abnormalities on a CGA and compared the performance of the two instruments with the VES-13. METHODS: We enrolled 117 participants, ≥65 years with stage I-IV cancer into this cross-sectional study. Our primary outcome variable was ≥two abnormalities on the CGA, (Yes or No). We employed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to compare the discriminatory abilities of the three instruments to identify ≥two abnormalities on the CGA. RESULTS: Of the 117 participants, 43% had ≥two abnormalities on the CGA. The VES-13 was predictive of ≥two abnormalities on the CGA, area under the curve (AUC)=0.85 [(95% CI: 0.78-0.92); sensitivity=88%, specificity=69%, at cut-off ≥3]. The ECOG-PS and KPS showed similar discriminatory powers, AUC=0.88 [(95% CI: 0.83-0.94); sensitivity=94%, specificity=55%, at cut-off ≥1]; and AUC=0.90 [(95% CI: 0.84-0.96); sensitivity=78%, specificity=91%, at cut-off ≤80%], respectively. CONCLUSION: The ECOG-PS and KPS were equivalent to the VES-13 in identifying older cancer patients with at least two abnormalities on the CGA. Given that oncologists are already conversant with the KPS and ECOG-PS, these two instruments offer medical oncologists a widely acceptable approach for screening older patients for a CGA.
BACKGROUND: The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) has been validated for screening older cancerpatients for a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). To identify a widely acceptable approach that encourages oncologists to screen older cancerpatients for a CGA, we examined the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) and Karnofsky Index of Performance Status (KPS) scales' ability to identify abnormalities on a CGA and compared the performance of the two instruments with the VES-13. METHODS: We enrolled 117 participants, ≥65 years with stage I-IV cancer into this cross-sectional study. Our primary outcome variable was ≥two abnormalities on the CGA, (Yes or No). We employed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to compare the discriminatory abilities of the three instruments to identify ≥two abnormalities on the CGA. RESULTS: Of the 117 participants, 43% had ≥two abnormalities on the CGA. The VES-13 was predictive of ≥two abnormalities on the CGA, area under the curve (AUC)=0.85 [(95% CI: 0.78-0.92); sensitivity=88%, specificity=69%, at cut-off ≥3]. The ECOG-PS and KPS showed similar discriminatory powers, AUC=0.88 [(95% CI: 0.83-0.94); sensitivity=94%, specificity=55%, at cut-off ≥1]; and AUC=0.90 [(95% CI: 0.84-0.96); sensitivity=78%, specificity=91%, at cut-off ≤80%], respectively. CONCLUSION: The ECOG-PS and KPS were equivalent to the VES-13 in identifying older cancerpatients with at least two abnormalities on the CGA. Given that oncologists are already conversant with the KPS and ECOG-PS, these two instruments offer medical oncologists a widely acceptable approach for screening older patients for a CGA.
Authors: Supriya Gupta Mohile; Ying Xian; William Dale; Susan G Fisher; Miriam Rodin; Gary R Morrow; Alfred Neugut; William Hall Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: G Freyer; J-F Geay; S Touzet; J Provencal; B Weber; J-P Jacquin; G Ganem; N Tubiana-Mathieu; O Gisserot; E Pujade-Lauraine Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-08-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Paolo Maione; Francesco Perrone; Ciro Gallo; Luigi Manzione; FrancoVito Piantedosi; Santi Barbera; Silvio Cigolari; Francesco Rosetti; Elena Piazza; Sergio Federico Robbiati; Oscar Bertetto; Silvia Novello; Maria Rita Migliorino; Adolfo Favaretto; Mario Spatafora; Francesco Ferraù; Luciano Frontini; Alessandra Bearz; Lazzaro Repetto; Cesare Gridelli; Emiddio Barletta; Maria Luisa Barzelloni; Rosario Vincenzo Iaffaioli; Ermelinda De Maio; Massimo Di Maio; Gianfranco De Feo; Giuseppe Sigoriello; Paolo Chiodini; Angela Cioffi; Vincenzo Guardasole; Valentina Angelini; Antonio Rossi; Domenico Bilancia; Domenico Germano; Alfredo Lamberti; Vittorio Pontillo; Luigi Brancaccio; Francesco Renda; Francesco Romano; Gabriella Esani; Anna Gambaro; Orazio Vinante; Giuseppe Azzarello; Maurizia Clerici; Roberto Bollina; Paolo Belloni; Mirella Sannicolò; Libero Ciuffreda; Giuseppe Parello; Mary Cabiddu; Cosimo Sacco; Angela Sibau; Gianfranco Porcile; Federico Castiglione; Oliviero Ostellino; Silvio Monfardini; Micaela Stefani; Giorgio Scagliotti; Giovanni Selvaggi; Filippo De Marinis; Olga Martelli; Giampietro Gasparini; Alessandro Morabito; Domenico Gattuso; Giuseppe Colucci; Domenico Galetta; Francesco Giotta; Vittorio Gebbia; Nicola Borsellino; Antonio Testa; Emilia Malaponte; Matteo A Capuano; Michele Angiolillo; Francesco Sollitto; Umberto Tirelli; Simona Spazzapan; Vincenzo Adamo; Giuseppe Altavilla; Antonio Scimone; Maria Raffaella Hopps; Francesco Tartamella; Giovanni Pietro Ianniello; Vincenza Tinessa; Giuseppe Failla; Roberto Bordonaro; Nicola Gebbia; Maria Rosaria Valerio; Modesto D'Aprile; Enzo Veltri; Maurizio Tonato; Samir Darwish; Sante Romito; Francesco Carrozza; Sandro Barni; Antonio Ardizzoia; Giuliana Mara Corradini; Gianfranco Pavia; Mario Belli; Giuseppe Colantuoni; Enzo Galligioni; Orazio Caffo; Roberto Labianca; Antonello Quadri; Enrico Cortesi; Giuliana D'Auria; Sergio Fava; Anna Calcagno; Gino Luporini; M Cristina Locatelli; Francesco Di Costanzo; Silvia Gasperoni; Luciano Isa; Paola Candido; Fernando Gaion; Giovanni Palazzolo; Giuseppe Nettis; Anselmo Annamaria; Massimo Rinaldi; Massimo Lopez; Raffaella Felletti; Giorgio Bernabò Di Negro; Nestore Rossi; Antonio Calandriello; Luigi Maiorino; Rodolfo Mattioli; Alfredo Celano; Stefania Schiavon; Alfonso Illiano; Carlo Alberto Raucci; Michele Caruso; Paolo Foa; Giuseppe Tonini; Carlo Curcio; Marina Cazzaniga Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D M Finkelstein; B R Cassileth; P D Bonomi; J C Ruckdeschel; E Z Ezdinli; J M Wolter Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 1988-12 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Eliane Kellen; Paul Bulens; Laura Deckx; Harry Schouten; Marjan Van Dijk; Ilse Verdonck; Frank Buntinx Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Lillian Min; William Yoon; Jeff Mariano; Neil S Wenger; Marc N Elliott; Caren Kamberg; Debra Saliba Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-09-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ismay N van Loon; Namiko A Goto; Franciscus T J Boereboom; Michiel L Bots; Marianne C Verhaar; Marije E Hamaker Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Barbara Deschler; Gabriele Ihorst; Uwe Platzbecker; Ulrich Germing; Eva März; Marcelo de Figuerido; Kurt Fritzsche; Peter Haas; Helmut R Salih; Aristoteles Giagounidis; Dominik Selleslag; Boris Labar; Theo de Witte; Pierre Wijermans; Michael Lübbert Journal: Haematologica Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: A Schwandt; P J Harris; S Hunsberger; A Deleporte; G L Smith; D Vulih; B D Anderson; S P Ivy Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Cynthia Owusu; Seunghee Margevicius; Mark Schluchter; Siran M Koroukian; Kathryn H Schmitz; Nathan A Berger Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hans Wildiers; Pieter Heeren; Martine Puts; Eva Topinkova; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Martine Extermann; Claire Falandry; Andrew Artz; Etienne Brain; Giuseppe Colloca; Johan Flamaing; Theodora Karnakis; Cindy Kenis; Riccardo A Audisio; Supriya Mohile; Lazzaro Repetto; Barbara Van Leeuwen; Koen Milisen; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Efrat Dotan; Karthik Devarajan; A James D'Silva; Andrew Beck; Dwight D Kloth; Steven J Cohen; Crystal Denlinger Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 4.481