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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The prognostic assessment of older cancer patients is complicated by their heterogeneity. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of routine inflammatory biomarkers. METHODS: A pooled analysis of prospective multicenter cohorts of cancer patients aged ≥70 was performed. We measured CRP and albumin, and calculated Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and CRP/albumin ratio. The GPS has three levels (0 = CRP ≤ 10 mg/L, albumin ≥ 35 g/L, i.e., normal values; 1 = one abnormal value; 2 = two abnormal values). One-year mortality was assessed using Cox models. Discriminative power was assessed using Harrell's C index (C) and net reclassification improvement (NRI). RESULTS: Overall, 1800 patients were analyzed (mean age: 79 ± 6; males: 62%; metastases: 38%). The GPS and CRP/albumin ratio were independently associated with mortality in patients not at risk of frailty (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 4.48 [2.03-9.89] for GPS1, 11.64 [4.54-29.81] for GPS2, and 7.15 [3.22-15.90] for CRP/albumin ratio > 0.215) and in patients at risk of frailty (2.45 [1.79-3.34] for GPS1, 3.97 [2.93-5.37] for GPS2, and 2.81 [2.17-3.65] for CRP/albumin ratio > 0.215). The discriminative power of the baseline clinical model (C = 0.82 [0.80-0.83]) was increased by adding GPS (C = 0.84 [0.82-0.85]; NRI events (NRI+) = 10% [2-16]) and CRP/albumin ratio (C = 0.83 [0.82-0.85]; NRI+ = 14% [2-17]). CONCLUSIONS: Routine inflammatory biomarkers add prognostic value to clinical factors in older cancer patients.
