Suppr超能文献

筛查工具用于多维健康问题,这些问题需要对老年癌症患者进行老年评估:SIOG 建议的更新†。

Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendations†.

机构信息

Department of Medical Oncology, Oncologisch Centrum, UZ Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels

Department of Geriatric Medecine, UZ Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

出版信息

Ann Oncol. 2015 Feb;26(2):288-300. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu210. Epub 2014 Jun 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Screening tools are proposed to identify those older cancer patients in need of geriatric assessment (GA) and multidisciplinary approach. We aimed to update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on the use of screening tools.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SIOG composed a task group to review, interpret and discuss evidence on the use of screening tools in older cancer patients. A systematic review was carried out and discussed by an expert panel, leading to a consensus statement on their use.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies reporting on the use of 17 different screening tools in older cancer patients were identified. The tools most studied in older cancer patients are G8, Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST) and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13). Across all studies, the highest sensitivity was observed for: G8, fTRST, Oncogeriatric screen, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status, Senior Adult Oncology Program (SAOP) 2 screening and Gerhematolim. In 11 direct comparisons for detecting problems on a full GA, the G8 was more or equally sensitive than other instruments in all six comparisons, whereas results were mixed for the VES-13 in seven comparisons. In addition, different tools have demonstrated associations with outcome measures, including G8 and VES-13.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

背景

筛选工具旨在识别那些需要老年评估(GA)和多学科方法的老年癌症患者。我们旨在更新国际老年肿瘤学会(SIOG)2005 年关于使用筛选工具的建议。

材料和方法

SIOG 组成了一个工作组,以审查、解释和讨论有关在老年癌症患者中使用筛选工具的证据。进行了系统评价,并由专家小组进行了讨论,达成了关于其使用的共识声明。

结果

确定了 44 项研究报告,涉及 17 种不同的筛选工具在老年癌症患者中的使用。在老年癌症患者中研究最多的工具是 G8、Flemish 版 Triage Risk Screening Tool(fTRST)和 Vulnerable Elders Survey-13(VES-13)。在所有研究中,观察到最高的敏感性:G8、fTRST、Oncogeriatric 筛查、骨质疏松性骨折研究、东部合作肿瘤组表现状态、高级成人肿瘤计划(SAOP)2 筛查和 Gerhematolim。在 11 项直接比较中,G8 在所有 6 项比较中比其他工具更敏感或同样敏感,而 VES-13 在 7 项比较中的结果则各不相同。此外,不同的工具已经证明与预后指标相关,包括 G8 和 VES-13。

结论

筛选工具不能替代 GA,但在繁忙的实践中建议使用,以识别需要全面 GA 的患者。如果异常,应在 GA 后进行筛选,并进行多学科指导干预。有多种工具可用于不同的参数,具有不同的性能(包括对进一步 GA 的需求的敏感性)。进一步的研究应侧重于筛选工具建立临床途径和预测不同预后参数的能力。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验