Cargando…

Item analysis of G8 screening in uro-oncologic geriatric patients

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: The G8 score is a widespread screening tool for geriatric frailty in oncology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scores and relevance of G8 items in a standard screening of geriatric patients with uro-oncologic diseases to better understand the results of the assessm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bouzan, J., Nellas, S., Stoilkov, B., Willschrei, P., Horstmann, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10185629/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37067702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11255-023-03594-1
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: The G8 score is a widespread screening tool for geriatric frailty in oncology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scores and relevance of G8 items in a standard screening of geriatric patients with uro-oncologic diseases to better understand the results of the assessment. METHODS: Eighty-two consecutive uro-oncologic geriatric patients aged 75 years and older were evaluated. All patients underwent a G8 screening that consisted of 8 items. Patients with a G8 score above 14 were considered geriatric “fit”, while others were considered to be “frail”. Overall results and single item scores were evaluated. Clinical data were gathered from patients’ charts. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 82 years (min. 75–max. 102). In 36 of the patients, the G8 score indicated “no-frailty”, and in 46 patients, the G8 score indicated “frailty”. The mean G8 score was 12.9 (min 4–max 17 pts). Item analysis revealed that points were most often lost in items H (polypharmacy), P (comparison of health status to peers) and Age. Fifty-nine, 56 and 52 patients lost points on item Age, item H and item P, respectively. In contrast, the majority of patients reached the maximum score for nutritional items [i.e., items A (food intake), B (weight loss) and F (body mass index (BMI))]. For item A, 73 patients reached the maximum score; for item B, 62 patients reached the maximum score; and for item F, 72 patients reached the maximum score. There were no differences in this distribution pattern when comparing tumour entities, sex, and patients with local vs. metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed a high percentage of suspicious test results. Potential reasons for these findings include the low threshold of the G8 overall score and the fact that in some items, points were easily lost. Modifications of the test should be considered.