Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Ann Oncol. 2014 Feb;25(2):307-15. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt386. Epub 2013 Nov 19.
BACKGROUND: Our previous systematic review of geriatric assessment (GA) in oncology included a literature search up to November 2010. However, the quickly evolving field warranted an update. Aims of this review: (i) provide an overview of all GA instruments developed and/or in use in the oncology setting; (ii) evaluate effectiveness of GA in predicting/modifying outcomes (e.g. treatment decision impact, treatment toxicity, mortality, use of care). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of literature published between November 2010 and 10 August 2012. English, Dutch, French and German-language articles reporting cross-sectional or longitudinal, intervention or observational studies of GA instruments were included. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently reviewed abstracts, abstracted data and assessed the quality using standardized forms. A meta-analysis method of combining proportions was used for the outcome impact of GA on treatment modification with studies included in this update combined with those included in our previous systematic review on the use of GA. RESULTS: Thirty-five manuscripts reporting 34 studies were identified. Quality of most studies was moderate to good. Eighteen studies were prospective, 11 cross-sectional and 5 retrospective. Three studies examined treatment decision-making impact and found decisions changed for fewer than half of assessed patients (weighted percent modification is 23.2% with 95% confidence interval (20.3% to 26.1%). Seven studies reported conflicting findings regarding predictive ability of GA for treatment toxicity/complications. Eleven studies examined GA predictions of mortality, and reported that instrumental activities of daily living, poor performance status and more numerous GA deficits were associated with increased mortality risk. Other outcomes could not be meta-analyzed. CONCLUSION: Consistent with our previous review, several domains of GA are associated with adverse outcomes. However, further research examining effectiveness of GA on treatment decisions and oncologic outcomes is needed.
背景:我们之前对肿瘤学老年评估(GA)的系统评价包括截至 2010 年 11 月的文献检索。然而,该领域的快速发展需要更新。本研究的目的是:(i)提供所有在肿瘤学领域开发和/或使用的 GA 工具的概述;(ii)评估 GA 在预测/改变结局方面的有效性(例如,治疗决策影响、治疗毒性、死亡率、护理使用)。
材料和方法:对 2010 年 11 月至 2012 年 8 月 10 日期间发表的文献进行系统评价。纳入了报告 GA 工具的横断面或纵向、干预或观察性研究的英文、荷兰文、法文和德文文章。
数据来源:MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO、CINAHL 和 Cochrane Library。两名研究人员独立审查摘要、提取数据,并使用标准化表格评估质量。使用合并比例的荟萃分析方法,将本次更新中纳入的研究与我们之前关于 GA 使用的系统评价中纳入的研究相结合,来评估 GA 对治疗改变的影响。
结果:确定了 35 篇报告 34 项研究的手稿。大多数研究的质量为中等到良好。18 项研究为前瞻性,11 项为横断面,5 项为回顾性。三项研究检查了治疗决策影响,发现只有不到一半的评估患者的决策发生了改变(加权百分比修改为 23.2%,95%置信区间为 20.3%至 26.1%)。有 7 项研究报告了 GA 对治疗毒性/并发症的预测能力存在矛盾的结果。11 项研究检查了 GA 对死亡率的预测,结果表明日常生活活动的工具性、较差的表现状态和更多的 GA 缺陷与死亡率风险增加相关。其他结局无法进行荟萃分析。
结论:与我们之前的综述一致,GA 的几个领域与不良结局相关。然而,需要进一步研究 GA 对治疗决策和肿瘤学结局的有效性。
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012-7-31
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-9-19
Health Technol Assess. 2024-10
NPJ Digit Med. 2025-2-11
Cancers (Basel). 2024-9-23
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023-12-6
Clin Interv Aging. 2023