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.
Objective To better define the rare adverse event (AE) of diabetes mellitus associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Design and methods We report the case of a lung cancer patient with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and autoimmune thyroiditis during pembrolizumab treatment. We provide a systematic review of all published cases (PubMed/Web of Science/Cochrane, through November 2018) of autoimmune diabetes mellitus related to blockade of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)-, programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor or its ligand (PD-L1) or combination (ICI) therapy. Results Our literature search identified 90 patient cases (our case excluded). Most patients were treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 as monotherapy (79%) or in combination with CTLA-4 blockade (15%). On average, diabetes mellitus was diagnosed after 4.5 cycles; earlier for combination ICI at 2.7 cycles. Early-onset diabetes mellitus (after one or two cycles) was observed during all treatment regimens. Diabetic ketoacidosis was present in 71%, while elevated lipase levels were detected in 52% (13/25). Islet autoantibodies were positive in 53% of patients with a predominance of glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies. Susceptible HLA genotypes were present in 65% (mostly DR4). Thyroid dysfunction was the most frequent other endocrine AE at 24% incidence in this patient population. Conclusion ICI-related diabetes mellitus is a rare but often life-threatening metabolic urgency of which health-care professionals and patients should be aware. Close monitoring of blood glucose and prompt endocrine investigation in case of hyperglycemia is advisable. Predisposing factors such as HLA genotype might explain why some individuals are at risk.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.