A B S T R A C T PurposeTo update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. MethodsSIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment-related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care. ResultsGA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another. ConclusionThere is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.

Screening tools do not replace GA but are recommended in a busy practice in order to identify those patients in need of full GA. If abnormal, screening should be followed by GA and guided multidisciplinary interventions. Several tools are available with different performance for various parameters (including sensitivity for addressing the need for further GA). Further research should focus on the ability of screening tools to build clinical pathways and to predict different outcome parameters.

Purpose To compare the diagnostic characteristics of two geriatric screening tools (G8 and Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool [fTRST]) to identify patients with a geriatric risk profile and to evaluate their prognostic value for functional decline and overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods Patients ≥ 70 years old with a malignant tumor were included if a new cancer event occurred requiring treatment decision. Geriatric screening with G8 and fTRST (cutoff ≥ 1 [fTRST (1)] and ≥ 2 [fTRST (2)] evaluated) was performed in all patients, as well as a geriatric assessment (GA) evaluating social situation, functionality (activities of daily living [ADL] + instrumental activities of daily living [IADL]), cognition, depression, and nutrition. Functionality was re-evaluated 2 to 3 months after cancer treatment decision, and death rate was followed. Functional decline and OS were evaluated in relation to normal versus abnormal score on both screening tools. Results Nine hundred thirty-seven patients were included (October 2009 to July 2011). G8 and fTRST (1) showed high sensitivity (86.5% to 91.3%) and moderate negative predictive value (61.3% to 63.4%) to detect patients with a geriatric risk profile. G8 and fTRST (1) were strongly prognostic for functional decline on ADL and IADL, and G8, fTRST (1), and fTRST (2) were prognostic for OS (all P < .001). G8 had the strongest prognostic value for OS (hazard ratio for G8 normal v abnormal, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.52). Conclusion Both geriatric screening tools, G8 and fTRST, are simple and useful instruments in older patients with cancer for identifying patients with a geriatric risk profile and have a strong prognostic value for functional decline and OS.