Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Cancer ; 103: 61-68, 2018 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30212804

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To define a core set of geriatric data to be methodically collected in clinical cancer trials of older adults, enabling comparison across trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following a consensus approach, a panel of 14 geriatricians from oncology clinics identified seven domains of importance in geriatric assessment. Based on the international recommendations, geriatricians selected the mostly commonly used tools/items for geriatric assessment by domain (January-October 2015). The Geriatric Core Dataset (G-CODE) was progressively developed according to RAND appropriateness ratings and feedback during three successive Delphi rounds (July-September 2016). The face validity of the G-CODE was assessed with two large panels of health professionals (55 national and 42 international experts) involved both in clinical practice and cancer trials (March-September 2017). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: After the last Delphi round, the tools/items proposed for the G-CODE were the following: (1) social assessment: living alone or support requested to stay at home; (2) functional autonomy: Activities of Daily Living (ADL) questionnaire and short instrumental ADL questionnaire; (3) mobility: Timed Up and Go test; (4) nutrition: weight loss during the past 6 months and body mass index; (5) cognition: Mini-Cog test; (6) mood: mini-Geriatric Depression Scale and (7) comorbidity: updated Charlson Comorbidity Index. More than 70% of national experts (42 from 20 cities) and international experts (31 from 13 countries) participated. National and international surveys showed good acceptability of the G-CODE. Specific points discussed included age-year cut-off, threshold of each tool/item and information about social support, but no additional item was proposed. CONCLUSION: We achieved formal consensus on a set of geriatric data to be collected in cancer trials of older patients. The dissemination and prospective use of the G-CODE is needed to assess its utility.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/methods , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , France , Humans , Male , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
J Nutr Health Aging ; 21(2): 202-206, 2017.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28112777

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive value of gait speed for early death in older outpatients with cancer. DESIGN: Prospective bicentric observational cohort study. SETTING: The Physical Frailty in Elder Cancer patients (PF-EC) study (France). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety outpatients with cancer during the first 6 months of follow up in the PF-EC study. MEASUREMENTS: The association between usual gait speed over 4 m alone (GS) or included in the short physical performance battery (SPPB) and overall survival within 6 months following a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). A Cox proportional-hazard regression model was performed in non-survivors for clinical factors from the CGA, along with c reactive protein (CRP). Two models were created to assess GS alone and from inclusion in the SPPB. RESULTS: The mean age was 80.6 years, and 50.5% of the participants were men. Death occurred in 11% (n=22) of the participants within the 6 month follow up period. Of these participants, 98% had solid cancers, and 33% had a metastatic disease. A GS < 0.8 m/s (HR=5.6, 95%CI=1.6-19.7, p=0.007), a SPPB < 9 (HR=5.8, 95%CI=1.6-20.9, p=0.007) and a CRP of 50 mg/l or greater (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with early death in the two multivariate analyses. Cancer site and extension were not significantly associated with early death. CONCLUSION: Walking tests are associated with early death within the 6 month follow up period after a CGA independent of cancer site and cancer extension. GS alone < 0.8 m/s is at least as efficacious as the SPPB in predicting this outcome. GS alone could be used routinely as a marker of early death to adapt oncologic therapeutics. Further studies are needed to validate these preliminary data.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms/mortality , Outpatients , Walking Speed , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , Female , Follow-Up Studies , France , Geriatric Assessment , Humans , Male , Multivariate Analysis , Neoplasms/physiopathology , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies
4.
Rev Med Interne ; 37(7): 480-8, 2016 Jul.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26997159

ABSTRACT

Scientific societies recommend the implementation of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in cancer patients aged 70 and older. The EGA is an interdisciplinary multidimensional diagnostic process seeking to assess the frail older person in order to develop a coordinated plan of treatment and long-term follow-up. Identification of comorbidities and age-induced physiological changes that may increase the risk of anticancer treatment toxicities is essential to better assess the risk-benefit ratio in elderly cancer patients. The systematic implementation of a CGA for each patient is difficult to perform in daily practice. Therefore, it is recommended to screen vulnerable patients who will benefit from a complete CGA. Our work presents the vulnerability screening tools validated by at least two independent studies in a cancer elderly population setting. Among seven screening tools, the G8 and the VES13 are the most effective, and have been validated specifically in older population with cancer. The G8 is recommended by scientific societies and the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) because of its easy implementation in daily clinical practice, its high sensitivity and fair specificity. Although studies are underway to improve its performance, the G8 is currently the simplest tool to routinely identify older cancer patients who should have a complete assessment in geriatric oncology.


Subject(s)
Geriatric Assessment/methods , Mass Screening/methods , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Aged , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Assessment , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...