Suppr超能文献

预测老年癌症患者的衰弱及老年干预措施:针对七种衰弱定义的两种筛查工具的性能——ELCAPA队列研究

Predicting Frailty and Geriatric Interventions in Older Cancer Patients: Performance of Two Screening Tools for Seven Frailty Definitions-ELCAPA Cohort.

作者信息

Martinez-Tapia Claudia, Laurent Marie, Paillaud Elena, Caillet Philippe, Ferrat Emilie, Lagrange Jean-Léon, Rwabihama Jean-Paul, Allain Mylène, Chahwakilian Anne, Boudou-Rouquette Pascaline, Bastuji-Garin Sylvie, Audureau Etienne

机构信息

Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.

Internal Medicine and Geriatric Department, AP-HP, Hôpital Henri-Mondor, F-94010 Creteil, France.

出版信息

Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jan 4;14(1):244. doi: 10.3390/cancers14010244.

Abstract

Screening tools have been developed to identify patients warranting a complete geriatric assessment (GA). However, GA lacks standardization and does not capture important aspects of geriatric oncology practice. We measured and compared the diagnostic performance of screening tools G8 and modified G8 according to multiple clinically relevant reference standards. We included 1136 cancer patients ≥ 70 years old referred for GA (ELCAPA cohort; median age, 80 years; males, 52%; main locations: digestive (36.3%), breast (16%), and urinary tract (14.8%); metastases, 43.5%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) estimates were compared between both tools against: (1) the detection of ≥1 or (2) ≥2 GA impairments, (3) the prescription of ≥1 geriatric intervention and the identification of an unfit profile according to (4) a latent class typology, expert-based classifications from (5) Balducci, (6) the International Society of Geriatric Oncology task force (SIOG), or using (7) a GA frailty index according to the Rockwood accumulation of deficits principle. AUROC values were ≥0.80 for both tools under all tested definitions. They were statistically significantly higher for the modified G8 for six reference standards: ≥1 GA impairment (0.93 vs. 0.89), ≥2 GA impairments (0.90 vs. 0.87), ≥1 geriatric intervention (0.85 vs. 0.81), unfit according to Balducci (0.86 vs. 0.80) and SIOG classifications (0.88 vs. 0.83), and according to the GA frailty index (0.86 vs. 0.84). Our findings demonstrate the robustness of both screening tools against different reference standards, with evidence of better diagnostic performance of the modified G8.

摘要

已经开发出筛查工具来识别需要进行全面老年评估(GA)的患者。然而,GA缺乏标准化,并且没有涵盖老年肿瘤学实践的重要方面。我们根据多个临床相关参考标准测量并比较了筛查工具G8和改良G8的诊断性能。我们纳入了1136名年龄≥70岁且被转诊进行GA的癌症患者(ELCAPA队列;中位年龄80岁;男性占52%;主要部位:消化系统(36.3%)、乳腺(16%)和泌尿系统(14.8%);有转移的患者占43.5%)。比较了两种工具针对以下情况的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)估计值:(1)检测到≥1项或(2)≥2项GA损伤,(3)开具≥1项老年干预措施,以及根据(4)潜在类别类型、(5)Balducci基于专家的分类、(6)国际老年肿瘤学会工作组(SIOG)或使用(7)根据Rockwood累积缺陷原则的GA虚弱指数来识别不适合的特征。在所有测试定义下,两种工具的AUROC值均≥0.80。对于六个参考标准,改良G8的AUROC值在统计学上显著更高:≥1项GA损伤(0.93对0.89)、≥2项GA损伤(0.90对0.87)、≥1项老年干预措施(0.85对0.81)、根据Balducci分类不适合(0.86对0.80)和SIOG分类(0.88对0.83),以及根据GA虚弱指数(0.86对0.84)。我们的研究结果表明,两种筛查工具针对不同参考标准都具有稳健性,且有证据表明改良G8具有更好的诊断性能。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5268/8750824/3c830822af55/cancers-14-00244-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验