Liuu Evelyne, Canouï-Poitrine Florence, Tournigand Christophe, Laurent Marie, Caillet Philippe, Le Thuaut Aurelie, Vincent Helene, Culine Stephane, Audureau Etienne, Bastuji-Garin Sylvie, Paillaud Elena
AP-HP, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Onco-Geriatric Clinic, F-94010 Créteil, France.
Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), LIC EA 4393, F-94010 Créteil, France; AP-HP, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Department of Public Health, F-94010 Créteil, France.
J Geriatr Oncol. 2014 Jan;5(1):11-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2013.08.003. Epub 2013 Sep 16.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: G-8 screening tool showed good screening properties for identifying vulnerable elderly patients with cancer who would benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). We investigated whether tumour site and metastatic status affected its accuracy.
Cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort study.
Geriatric-oncology clinics of two teaching hospitals in the urban area of Paris.
Patients aged 70 or over (n = 518) with breast ( n= 113), colorectal (n = 108), urinary-tract (n = 89), upper gastrointestinal/liver (n = 85), prostate (n = 69), or other cancers (n = 54).
Reference standard for diagnosing vulnerability was the presence of at least one abnormal test among the Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Instrumental ADL, Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini Nutritional Assessment, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatrics, Timed Get-Up-and-Go, and Mini-Geriatric Depression Scale. Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios of G-8 scores ≤ 14 were compared according to tumour site and patient characteristics.
Median age was 80; 48.2% had metastases. Prevalence of vulnerability and abnormal G-8 score was 84.2% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 81-87.3) and 79.5% (95% CI, 76-83). The G-8 was 86.9% sensitive (95% CI, 83.4-89.9) and 59.8% specific (95% CI, 48.3-70.4). G-8 performance varied significantly (all p values < 0.001) across tumour sites (sensitivity, 65.2% in prostate cancer to 95.1% in upper gastrointestinal/liver cancer; and specificity, 23.1% in colorectal cancer to 95.7% in prostate cancer) and metastatic status (sensitivity and specificity, 93.8% and 53.3% in patients with metastases vs. 79.5% and 63.3% in those without, respectively). Differences remained significant after adjustment on age and performance status.
These G-8 accuracy variations across tumour sites should be considered when using G-8 to identify elderly patients with cancer who could benefit from CGA.
背景/目的:G-8筛查工具在识别可从综合老年评估(CGA)中获益的脆弱老年癌症患者方面显示出良好的筛查特性。我们研究了肿瘤部位和转移状态是否会影响其准确性。
一项前瞻性队列研究的横断面分析。
巴黎市区两家教学医院的老年肿瘤诊所。
70岁及以上的患者(n = 518),患有乳腺癌(n = 113)、结直肠癌(n = 108)、泌尿系统癌(n = 89)、上消化道/肝癌(n = 85)、前列腺癌(n = 69)或其他癌症(n = 54)。
诊断脆弱性的参考标准是在日常生活活动(ADL)、工具性ADL、简易精神状态检查表、简易营养评估、累积疾病评定量表-老年版、计时起立行走测试和简易老年抑郁量表中至少有一项测试异常。根据肿瘤部位和患者特征比较G-8评分≤14的敏感性、特异性和似然比。
中位年龄为80岁;48.2%有转移。脆弱性患病率和G-8评分异常率分别为84.2%(95%置信区间[95%CI],81-87.3)和79.5%(95%CI,76-83)。G-8的敏感性为86.9%(95%CI,83.4-89.9),特异性为59.8%(95%CI,48.3-70.4)。G-8的性能在不同肿瘤部位(所有p值<0.001)(敏感性,前列腺癌为65.2%,上消化道/肝癌为95.1%;特异性,结直肠癌为23.1%,前列腺癌为95.7%)和转移状态(敏感性和特异性,有转移患者分别为93.8%和53.3%,无转移患者分别为79.5%和63.3%)之间有显著差异。在对年龄和性能状态进行调整后,差异仍然显著。
在使用G-8识别可从CGA中获益的老年癌症患者时,应考虑这些G-8在不同肿瘤部位的准确性差异。