Ferrat Emilie, Paillaud Elena, Caillet Philippe, Laurent Marie, Tournigand Christophe, Lagrange Jean-Léon, Droz Jean-Pierre, Balducci Lodovico, Audureau Etienne, Canouï-Poitrine Florence, Bastuji-Garin Sylvie
Emilie Ferrat, Elena Paillaud, Philippe Caillet, Marie Laurent, Christophe Tournigand, Jean-Léon Lagrange, Etienne Audureau, Florence Canouï-Poitrine, and Sylvie Bastuji-Garin, Université Paris-Est Créteil; Elena Paillaud, Philippe Caillet, Marie Laurent, Christophe Tournigand, Jean-Léon Lagrange, Etienne Audureau, Florence Canouï-Poitrine, and Sylvie Bastuji-Garin, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Henri-Mondor Teaching Hospital, Créteil; Jean-Pierre Droz, Claude-Bernard-Lyon-1 University and Centre Léon-Bérard, Lyon, France; and Lodovico Balducci, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL.
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar;35(7):766-777. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.3143. Epub 2017 Jan 17.
Purpose Frailty classifications of older patients with cancer have been developed to assist physicians in selecting cancer treatments and geriatric interventions. They have not been compared, and their performance in predicting outcomes has not been assessed. Our objectives were to assess agreement among four classifications and to compare their predictive performance in a large cohort of in- and outpatients with various cancers. Patients and Methods We prospectively included 1,021 patients age 70 years or older who had solid or hematologic malignancies and underwent a geriatric assessment in one of two French teaching hospitals between 2007 and 2012. Among them, 763 were assessed using four classifications: Balducci, International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 1, SIOG2, and a latent class typology. Agreement was assessed using the κ statistic. Outcomes were 1-year mortality and 6-month unscheduled admissions. Results All four classifications had good discrimination for 1-year mortality (C-index ≥ 0.70); discrimination was best with SIOG1. For 6-month unscheduled admissions, discrimination was good with all four classifications (C-index ≥ 0.70). For classification into three (fit, vulnerable, or frail) or two categories (fit v vulnerable or frail and fit or vulnerable v frail), agreement among the four classifications ranged from very poor (κ ≤ 0.20) to good (0.60 < κ ≤ 0.80). Agreement was best between SIOG1 and the latent class typology and between SIOG1 and Balducci. Conclusion These four frailty classifications have good prognostic performance among older in- and outpatients with various cancers. They may prove useful in decision making about cancer treatments and geriatric interventions and/or in stratifying older patients with cancer in clinical trials.
目的 已开发出老年癌症患者的衰弱分类方法,以帮助医生选择癌症治疗方案和老年干预措施。但尚未对这些分类方法进行比较,也未评估它们在预测预后方面的表现。我们的目标是评估四种分类方法之间的一致性,并比较它们在一大群患有各种癌症的门诊和住院患者中的预测性能。
患者与方法 我们前瞻性纳入了1021名70岁及以上患有实体或血液系统恶性肿瘤的患者,这些患者于2007年至2012年期间在法国两家教学医院之一接受了老年评估。其中,763名患者使用四种分类方法进行了评估:巴尔杜奇分类法、国际老年肿瘤学会(SIOG)1类、SIOG2类和一种潜在类别类型学。使用κ统计量评估一致性。结局指标为1年死亡率和6个月内的非计划住院。
结果 所有四种分类方法对1年死亡率都有良好的区分度(C指数≥0.70);SIOG1的区分度最佳。对于6个月内的非计划住院,所有四种分类方法的区分度都很好(C指数≥0.70)。对于分为三类(健康、脆弱或衰弱)或两类(健康与脆弱或衰弱,以及健康或脆弱与衰弱)的分类,四种分类方法之间的一致性从非常差(κ≤0.20)到良好(0.60<κ≤0.80)不等。SIOG1与潜在类别类型学之间以及SIOG1与巴尔杜奇分类法之间的一致性最佳。
结论 这四种衰弱分类方法在患有各种癌症的老年门诊和住院患者中具有良好的预后性能。它们可能在癌症治疗和老年干预的决策制定以及/或者在临床试验中对老年癌症患者进行分层方面证明是有用的。