A systematic review on the association of the G8 with geriatric assessment, prognosis and course of treatment in older patients with cancer

Walree, Inez Charlotte van; Scheepers, Ellen R M; Huis-Tanja, Lieke van; Emmelot-Vonk, Mariëlle H.; Bellera, C.; Soubeyran, Pierre; Hamaker, Marije E.

doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.016

Cited by 147 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…14 Moreover, frailty screening tools were developed in order to identify older patients who require a full geriatric assessment. 15 Nowadays, some form of geriatric assessment is increasingly incorporated in hemato-oncologic care to customize hemato-oncologic treatment. 16 In 2014, we published a systematic review on the value of performing a geriatric assessment in older patients with a hematologic malignancy, demonstrating that such an assessment can detect multiple health issues and has predictive value for clinical outcome in older patients with a hematologic malignancy.…”

Section: Geriatric Assessment In Older Patients With a Hematologic Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Geriatric assessment in older patients with a hematologic malignancy: a systematic review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Geriatric Assessment In Older Patients With a Hematologic Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Geriatric assessment in older patients with a hematologic malignancy: a systematic review

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…110 Thus, they may be the most useful tool for predicting the prognosis in elderly patients with early-stage upper GI neoplasia at this time. However, screening tools cannot replace a full GA. 111 In future, a prospective study to compare these tools/index is warranted and, if these are not optimal tools for predicting the prognosis in elderly patients with early-stage upper GI neoplasia, the development of a novel, simple assessment tool is hopeful. Furthermore, the assessment of healthrelated QOL is also important in elderly patients.…”

Section: B Crtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management following endoscopic resection in elderly patients with early‐stage upper gastrointestinal neoplasia

Hatta

Gotoda

Koike

et al. 2020

Digestive Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the ongoing increase in the aging population in Japan, the number of elderly patients among the total population with upper gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasia has also been increasing. As elderly patients present unique age‐related variations in their physical condition, the therapeutic approach for upper GI neoplasia should be differentiated between elderly and nonelderly patients. According to the existing guidelines, additional treatment is the standard therapy in patients who undergo endoscopic resection (ER) with a possible risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) for upper GI neoplasia. However, due to the relatively low rate of LNM, applying additional treatment in all elderly patients may be excessive. Although additional treatment has the advantage of reducing cancer‐specific mortality, its disadvantages include deteriorated quality of life, complications, and mortality in surgery. In patients with early gastric cancer, we propose treatment decisions be made using a risk‐scoring system for LNM and upon considering the physical condition of the patient after ER with curability C‐2. In those with superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with a possible risk of LNM after ER, selective chemoradiotherapy may be a less‐invasive treatment option, although the present standard treatment is esophagectomy. When considering the treatment decision, achieving a “cure” of the tumor has been regarded as critical. However, as the main cause of mortality in elderly patients with ER for upper GI neoplasia is noncancer‐related death, both achieving a “cure” and also a good level of “care” is important in the management of elderly patients.

show abstract

“…Content-related domains of each frailty screening tool (FST) as identified by the systematic literature search Frailty screening in dermato-oncology extensively studied tool with appropriate measurement properties when compared to a full GA. [10][11][12][13]19,48,[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] In the few articles studying the recently developed mG8, sensitivity (89-92%) and specificity (36-79%) for geriatric impairments detected by GA appear higher than the original G8. 20,61 However, the mG8 is currently only available in a limited number of languages.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

Frailty screening in dermato‐oncology practice: a modified Delphi study and a systematic review of the literature

Winden

Garcovich

Peris

et al. 2020

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Appropriate management and prevention of both under-and overtreatment in older skin cancer patients can be challenging. It could be helpful to incorporate frailty screening in dermato-oncology care, since frailty is associated with adverse health outcomes. Objectives This study aimed to identify and prioritize the requirements a frailty screening tool (FST) should fulfil in dermato-oncology practice and to select the best existing FST(s) for this purpose. Methods A modified two-round Delphi procedure was performed among 50 Italian and Dutch specialists and patients to review and prioritize a list of potential FST requirements, using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as a mean score of ≥4.0. A systematic literature search was performed to identify existing multidomain FSTs, which were then assessed on the requirements resulting from the modified Delphi procedure. Results Consensus was achieved on evaluation of comorbidities (4.3 AE 0.7), polypharmacy (4.0 AE 0.9) and cognition (4.1 AE 0.8). The FST should have appropriate measurement properties (4.0 AE 1.0), be quickly executed (4.2 AE 0.7), clinically relevant (4.3 AE 0.7), and both easily understandable (4.1 AE 1.2) and interpretable (4.3 AE 0.7). Of the 26 identified FSTs, four evaluated the content-related domains: the Geriatric-8 (G8), the modified Geriatric-8 (mG8), the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and the Senior Adult Oncology Program 2 (SAOP2) screening tool. Of these, the G8 was the most extensively studied FST, with the best psychometric properties and execution within 5 min. Conclusions The G8 appears the most suitable FST for assessing frailty in older adults with skin cancer, although clinical studies assessing its use in a dermato-oncology population are needed to further assess whether or not frailty in this particular patient group is associated with relevant outcomes (e.g. complications and mortality), as seen in previous studies in other medical fields.

show abstract

A systematic review on the association of the G8 with geriatric assessment, prognosis and course of treatment in older patients with cancer

Cited by 147 publications

References 54 publications

Geriatric assessment in older patients with a hematologic malignancy: a systematic review

Geriatric assessment in older patients with a hematologic malignancy: a systematic review

Management following endoscopic resection in elderly patients with early‐stage upper gastrointestinal neoplasia

Frailty screening in dermato‐oncology practice: a modified Delphi study and a systematic review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About