Cheryl P Bruijnen1, Anne Heijmer2, Diny G van Harten-Krouwel2, Frederiek van den Bos2, Remco de Bree3, Petronella O Witteveen4, Mariëlle H Emmelot-Vonk2. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: c.p.bruijnen@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Geriatrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Geriatric 8 (G8) has proven to be one of the most sensitive frailty-screening tools for older patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment. In this study we validated whether the G8 is also suitable for identifying impairments in their comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in older patients with cancer undergoing surgery. Thereby, we investigated the differences in postoperative outcomes between the fit and frail patients classified by the G8. METHODS: Patients ≥70 years with a surgery indication because of a (suspected) malignant disease were prospectively enrolled. In all patients, a CGA was performed. The G8 results were assessed in parallel. The diagnostic value of the G8 was determined by comparing the result with the CGA as a reference test. Deficits in CGA was defined as ≥ two impairments of the CGA. Postoperative complications were retrospectively obtained from the medical record and compared between the fit and frail patients. RESULTS: In total, 143 patients were enrolled. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of the G8 were 82% (95% CI 70-91), 63% (95% CI 52-73), and 85% (95% CI 75-91). In the patients with an impaired G8, a significantly prolonged hospital stay, higher rate of delirium, and higher 1-year mortality rate were seen. CONCLUSION: The G8 is a simple and useful screening tool for identifying deficits in CGA in older patients with cancer requiring surgery. Second, we concluded that patients with an impaired G8 are more at risk for a complicated recovery from surgery.
BACKGROUND: The Geriatric 8 (G8) has proven to be one of the most sensitive frailty-screening tools for older patients with cancer undergoing systemic treatment. In this study we validated whether the G8 is also suitable for identifying impairments in their comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in older patients with cancer undergoing surgery. Thereby, we investigated the differences in postoperative outcomes between the fit and frail patients classified by the G8. METHODS:Patients ≥70 years with a surgery indication because of a (suspected) malignant disease were prospectively enrolled. In all patients, a CGA was performed. The G8 results were assessed in parallel. The diagnostic value of the G8 was determined by comparing the result with the CGA as a reference test. Deficits in CGA was defined as ≥ two impairments of the CGA. Postoperative complications were retrospectively obtained from the medical record and compared between the fit and frail patients. RESULTS: In total, 143 patients were enrolled. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of the G8 were 82% (95% CI 70-91), 63% (95% CI 52-73), and 85% (95% CI 75-91). In the patients with an impaired G8, a significantly prolonged hospital stay, higher rate of delirium, and higher 1-year mortality rate were seen. CONCLUSION: The G8 is a simple and useful screening tool for identifying deficits in CGA in older patients with cancer requiring surgery. Second, we concluded that patients with an impaired G8 are more at risk for a complicated recovery from surgery.
Authors: Fabio Traunero; Francesco Claps; Tommaso Silvestri; Maria Carmen Mir; Luca Ongaro; Michele Rizzo; Andrea Piasentin; Giovanni Liguori; Francesca Vedovo; Antonio Celia; Carlo Trombetta; Nicola Pavan Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Remco de Bree; Christiaan D A Meerkerk; Gyorgy B Halmos; Antti A Mäkitie; Akihiro Homma; Juan P Rodrigo; Fernando López; Robert P Takes; Jan B Vermorken; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Lindsay A Hampson; Anne M Suskind; Benjamin N Breyer; Lillian Lai; Matthew R Cooperberg; Rebecca L Sudore; Salomeh Keyhani; I Elaine Allen; Louise C Walter Journal: Urology Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 2.633
Authors: Yoon Penning; Antoine El Asmar; Michel Moreau; Julie Raspé; Lissandra Dal Lago; Thierry Pepersack; Vincent Donckier; Gabriel Liberale Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.240