Anja Velghe1, Mirko Petrovic2, Stefanie De Buyser3, Rein Demuynck4, Lucien Noens5. 1. Department of Geriatrics, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: Anja.velghe@uzgent.be. 2. Department of Geriatrics, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: Mirko.petrovic@ugent.be. 3. Department of Geriatrics, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: Stefanie.debuyser@ugent.be. 4. Department of Geriatrics, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: Rein.demuynck@uzgent.be. 5. Department of Haematology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: Lucien.noens@ugent.be.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incidence rates of haematological malignancies increase with age. In these older cancer patients, important information may be missed without a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). A validated screening instrument is needed to identify those patients for whom a CGA would be beneficial. The G8 has recently been validated as a screening tool for older cancer patients in need of a CGA. OBJECTIVES: To test the performance of the G8 screening tool in older patients with aggressive haematological malignancies to identify those who would benefit from a CGA. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of patients ≥70 years with a recently diagnosed haematological malignancy. G8, CGA (including six questionnaires) and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) were completed in each patient. The CGA was considered abnormal when at least one questionnaire showed an impaired score. RESULTS: Fifty patients with median age of 76 years were included; 88% (N = 44) had an abnormal CGA. ROC curve analyses revealed a G8 score ≤14 obtained a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 75-96) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 54-100), suggesting an optimal cut-off point. AUC ± SE was 0.949 ± 0.030. Inclusion of comorbidity in the CGA did not change the performance of the G8 (0.943 ± 0.034; P = 0.895). CONCLUSION: The G8 can be used as a valid screening tool in older patients with aggressive haematological malignancies to identify those patients who would benefit from a CGA. Comorbidity should be assessed routinely and independently of the G8.
BACKGROUND: Incidence rates of haematological malignancies increase with age. In these older cancerpatients, important information may be missed without a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). A validated screening instrument is needed to identify those patients for whom a CGA would be beneficial. The G8 has recently been validated as a screening tool for older cancerpatients in need of a CGA. OBJECTIVES: To test the performance of the G8 screening tool in older patients with aggressive haematological malignancies to identify those who would benefit from a CGA. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of patients ≥70 years with a recently diagnosed haematological malignancy. G8, CGA (including six questionnaires) and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) were completed in each patient. The CGA was considered abnormal when at least one questionnaire showed an impaired score. RESULTS: Fifty patients with median age of 76 years were included; 88% (N = 44) had an abnormal CGA. ROC curve analyses revealed a G8 score ≤14 obtained a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 75-96) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 54-100), suggesting an optimal cut-off point. AUC ± SE was 0.949 ± 0.030. Inclusion of comorbidity in the CGA did not change the performance of the G8 (0.943 ± 0.034; P = 0.895). CONCLUSION: The G8 can be used as a valid screening tool in older patients with aggressive haematological malignancies to identify those patients who would benefit from a CGA. Comorbidity should be assessed routinely and independently of the G8.
Authors: Ellen R M Scheepers; Ariel M Vondeling; Noortje Thielen; René van der Griend; Reinhard Stauder; Marije E Hamaker Journal: Haematologica Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: M E C van Winden; S Garcovich; K Peris; G Colloca; E M G J de Jong; M E Hamaker; P C M van de Kerkhof; S F K Lubeek Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 9.228