在肿瘤学研究中,“脆弱”有多脆弱?一项范围综述。

How frail is frail in oncology studies? A scoping review.

机构信息

Division of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.

Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.

出版信息

BMC Cancer. 2023 Jun 2;23(1):498. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-10933-z.

Abstract

AIMS

The frailty index (FI) is one way in which frailty can be quantified. While it is measured as a continuous variable, various cut-off points have been used to categorise older adults as frail or non-frail, and these have largely been validated in the acute care or community settings for older adults without cancer. This review aimed to explore which FI categories have been applied to older adults with cancer and to determine why these categories were selected by study authors.

METHODS

This scoping review searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases for studies which measured and categorised an FI in adults with cancer. Of the 1994 screened, 41 were eligible for inclusion. Data including oncological setting, FI categories, and the references or rationale for categorisation were extracted and analysed.

RESULTS

The FI score used to categorise participants as frail ranged from 0.06 to 0.35, with 0.35 being the most frequently used, followed by 0.25 and 0.20. The rationale for FI categories was provided in most studies but was not always relevant. Three of the included studies using an FI > 0.35 to define frailty were frequently referenced as the rationale for subsequent studies, however, the original rationale for this categorisation was unclear. Few studies sought to determine or validate optimum FI categorises in this population.

CONCLUSION

There is significant variability in how studies have categorised the FI in older adults with cancer. An FI ≥ 0.35 to categorise frailty was used most frequently, however an FI in this range has often represented at least moderate to severe frailty in other highly-cited studies. These findings contrast with a scoping review of highly-cited studies categorising FI in older adults without cancer, where an FI ≥ 0.25 was most common. Maintaining the FI as a continuous variable is likely to be beneficial until further validation studies determine optimum FI categories in this population. Differences in how the FI has been categorised, and indeed how older adults have been labelled as 'frail', limits our ability to synthesise results and to understand the impact of frailty in cancer care.

摘要

目的

虚弱指数(FI)是量化虚弱的一种方法。虽然它被测量为连续变量,但已经使用了各种截断值来将老年人分类为虚弱或非虚弱,并且这些截断值主要在癌症老年人的急性护理或社区环境中得到验证。本综述旨在探讨哪些 FI 类别已应用于癌症老年人,并确定研究作者选择这些类别的原因。

方法

本范围综述在 Medline、EMBASE、Cochrane、CINAHL 和 Web of Science 数据库中搜索了测量和分类癌症成年人 FI 的研究。在筛选的 1994 项中,有 41 项符合纳入标准。提取并分析了包括肿瘤学环境、FI 类别以及分类的参考文献或理由的数据。

结果

用于将参与者归类为虚弱的 FI 评分范围为 0.06 至 0.35,其中 0.35 最常用,其次是 0.25 和 0.20。大多数研究都提供了 FI 类别的依据,但并不总是相关的。纳入的三项使用 FI>>0.35 来定义虚弱的研究经常被引用为随后研究的依据,但这种分类的原始依据并不清楚。很少有研究试图确定或验证该人群中 FI 最佳分类。

结论

在癌症老年人中,FI 分类的方法存在很大差异。最常用的是将 FI>>0.35 分类为虚弱,但在其他高引用研究中,这个范围内的 FI 通常代表至少中度到严重的虚弱。这些发现与一项对高引用研究中癌症老年人 FI 分类的范围综述形成对比,其中最常见的是 FI>>0.25。在进一步的验证研究确定该人群中 FI 的最佳分类之前,将 FI 保持为连续变量可能是有益的。FI 分类的差异,以及老年人被标记为“虚弱”的方式,限制了我们综合结果和理解虚弱对癌症护理影响的能力。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ebe9/10236730/a9f272ed4785/12885_2023_10933_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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