Background: The G8 and ISAR scores are two different screening tools for geriatric risk factors and frailty. The aim of this study was to compare the G8 and ISAR screening results in a cohort of urogeriatric patients to help clinicians to better understand and choose between the two tests. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 100 patients at the age of 75 and above who were treated for different urological conditions. All routinely and prospectively underwent G8 and ISAR screening tests. A G8 score ≤ 14 and an ISAR score > 2 were considered positive. The results for the two tests were compared and correlated to clinical data. Results: The mean age of the patients was 83 y (min. 75–max. 101); 78 of the patients were male, while 22 were female; 58 of the patients were G8-positive, while 42 were G8-negative; and 24 were ISAR-positive, while 76 ISAR were negative. All the ISAR-positive patients were also G8-positive. There was a significant negative correlation between the G8 and ISAR scores (r = −0.77, p < 0.001). Both tests correlated significantly with the Charlson comorbidity index, length of stay, number of coded diagnosis, and Braden score (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Both tests are significantly correlated with each other and to clinical data related to geriatric frailty. However, the G8 score has a much higher rate of positive tests, which limits its use in daily routine, and the ISAR score is therefore preferable. For “fit” geriatric patients, however, a negative G8 score can be of great use as a confirmatory test for further decision making.

Introduction/background The G8 score is a widespread screening tool for geriatric frailty in oncology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scores and relevance of G8 items in a standard screening of geriatric patients with uro-oncologic diseases to better understand the results of the assessment. Methods Eighty-two consecutive uro-oncologic geriatric patients aged 75 years and older were evaluated. All patients underwent a G8 screening that consisted of 8 items. Patients with a G8 score above 14 were considered geriatric “fit”, while others were considered to be “frail”. Overall results and single item scores were evaluated. Clinical data were gathered from patients’ charts. Results The mean age of the patients was 82 years (min. 75–max. 102). In 36 of the patients, the G8 score indicated “no-frailty”, and in 46 patients, the G8 score indicated “frailty”. The mean G8 score was 12.9 (min 4–max 17 pts). Item analysis revealed that points were most often lost in items H (polypharmacy), P (comparison of health status to peers) and Age. Fifty-nine, 56 and 52 patients lost points on item Age, item H and item P, respectively. In contrast, the majority of patients reached the maximum score for nutritional items [i.e., items A (food intake), B (weight loss) and F (body mass index (BMI))]. For item A, 73 patients reached the maximum score; for item B, 62 patients reached the maximum score; and for item F, 72 patients reached the maximum score. There were no differences in this distribution pattern when comparing tumour entities, sex, and patients with local vs. metastatic disease. Conclusion The present study revealed a high percentage of suspicious test results. Potential reasons for these findings include the low threshold of the G8 overall score and the fact that in some items, points were easily lost. Modifications of the test should be considered.

No abstract