Cheryl P Bruijnen1, Diny G van Harten-Krouwel2, José J Koldenhof3, Mariëlle H Emmelot-Vonk2, Petronella O Witteveen3. 1. From the Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: c.p.bruijnen@umcutrecht.nl. 2. From the Department of Geriatrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. From the Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A geriatric assessment (GA) is increasingly used to help guide treatment decisions in older patients with cancer. However, there is no consensus regarding which domains should be included in the GA. In addition, the field of geriatric oncology moves very fast and as a result many new studies have been published since the last review in 2015. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to evaluate which domains of the GA could predict patient-related treatment outcomes of older patients with cancer and thereby should be included in a GA. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for publications in English or Dutch between September 2006 and July 2017 addressing the association between individual domains of the GA and mortality, postoperative complications, or systemic treatment-related outcomes in older patients with cancer. RESULTS: Eight different domains were evaluated in 46 publications, namely functional status, nutritional status, cognition, mood, physical function, fatigue, social support, and falls. All eight domains were predictive for at least one of the investigated outcomes but the results were quite variable across studies. Physical function and nutritional status were the domains most often associated with mortality and systemic treatment-related outcomes, and the domain physical function was most often associated with postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Overall, this review demonstrates that the GA should minimally consist of physical function and nutritional status, when the aim is to predict patients-related outcomes of older patients with cancer, although the results are quite heterogeneous. For the other domains, the findings are too inconsistent to draw conclusions about their overall predictive ability.
BACKGROUND: A geriatric assessment (GA) is increasingly used to help guide treatment decisions in older patients with cancer. However, there is no consensus regarding which domains should be included in the GA. In addition, the field of geriatric oncology moves very fast and as a result many new studies have been published since the last review in 2015. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to evaluate which domains of the GA could predict patient-related treatment outcomes of older patients with cancer and thereby should be included in a GA. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for publications in English or Dutch between September 2006 and July 2017 addressing the association between individual domains of the GA and mortality, postoperative complications, or systemic treatment-related outcomes in older patients with cancer. RESULTS: Eight different domains were evaluated in 46 publications, namely functional status, nutritional status, cognition, mood, physical function, fatigue, social support, and falls. All eight domains were predictive for at least one of the investigated outcomes but the results were quite variable across studies. Physical function and nutritional status were the domains most often associated with mortality and systemic treatment-related outcomes, and the domain physical function was most often associated with postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Overall, this review demonstrates that the GA should minimally consist of physical function and nutritional status, when the aim is to predict patients-related outcomes of older patients with cancer, although the results are quite heterogeneous. For the other domains, the findings are too inconsistent to draw conclusions about their overall predictive ability.
Authors: Richard J Lin; Parastoo B Dahi; Armin Shahrokni; Saman Sarraf; Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki; Sean M Devlin; Molly A Maloy; Gunjan L Shah; Ann A Jakubowski; Sergio A Giralt Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2019-06-21
Authors: Grant R Williams; Kathryn E Weaver; Glenn J Lesser; Emily Dressler; Karen M Winkfield; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth Carlos; Lucy J Gansauer; Charles S Kamen; Joseph M Unger; Supriya G Mohile; Heidi D Klepin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-08-31
Authors: Clark DuMontier; Mina S Sedrak; Wee Kheng Soo; Cindy Kenis; Grant R Williams; Kristen Haase; Magnus Harneshaug; Hira Mian; Kah Poh Loh; Siri Rostoft; William Dale; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Jennifer L Lund; Paul R Duberstein; Kah Poh Loh; Nikesha Gilmore; Sandy Plumb; Lianlian Lei; Alexander P Keil; Jessica Y Islam; Laura C Hanson; Jeffrey K Giguere; Victor G Vogel; Brian L Burnette; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Vivian Lam; Katey Webber; Simran Padam; Mina S Sedrak; Vivek Musinipally; Madison Grogan; Carolyn J Presley; Janice Grandi; Chandrika Sanapala; Daniel A Castillo; Grace DiGiovanni; Supriya G Mohile; Louise C Walter; Melisa L Wong Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: Stéphanie M L M Looijaard; Carel G M Meskers; Monique S Slee-Valentijn; Donald E Bouman; A N Machteld Wymenga; Joost M Klaase; Andrea B Maier Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-11-20
Authors: Cheryl P Bruijnen; José J Koldenhof; Rik J Verheijden; Frederiek van den Bos; Mariëlle H Emmelot-Vonk; Petronella O Witteveen; Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 6.921