Cargando…
Predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of SAOP2 and G8
OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), the gold standard for detecting frailty in elderly cancer patients, is time-consuming and hard to apply in routine clinical practice. Here we compared the performance of two screening tools for frailty, G8 and SAOP2 for their accuracy in identify...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Impact Journals LLC
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6205549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30416679 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.26147 |
_version_ | 1783366198818242560 |
---|---|
author | Russo, Chiara Giannotti, Chiara Signori, Alessio Cea, Michele Murialdo, Roberto Ballestrero, Alberto Scabini, Stefano Romairone, Emanuele Odetti, Patrizio Nencioni, Alessio Monacelli, Fiammetta |
author_facet | Russo, Chiara Giannotti, Chiara Signori, Alessio Cea, Michele Murialdo, Roberto Ballestrero, Alberto Scabini, Stefano Romairone, Emanuele Odetti, Patrizio Nencioni, Alessio Monacelli, Fiammetta |
author_sort | Russo, Chiara |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), the gold standard for detecting frailty in elderly cancer patients, is time-consuming and hard to apply in routine clinical practice. Here we compared the performance of two screening tools for frailty, G8 and SAOP2 for their accuracy in identifying vulnerable patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We tested G8 and SAOP2 in 282 patients aged 65 or older with a diagnosis of solid cancer and candidate to undergo surgical, medical and/or radiotherapy treatment. CGA, including functional and cognitive status, depression, nutrition, comorbidity, social status and quality of life was used as reference. ROC curves were used to compare two screening tools. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 79 years and 54% were female. Colorectal and breast cancer were the most common types cancer (49% and 24%). Impaired CGA, G8, and SAOP2 were found in 62%, 89%, and 94% of the patients, respectively. SAOP2 had a better sensitivity (AUC 0.85, p<0.032) than G8 (AUC 0.79), with higher performance in breast cancer patients (AUC 0.93) and in patients aged 70-80 years (AUC 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: G8 and SAOP2 both showed good screening capacity for frailty in the cancer patient population we examined with SAOP2 showing a slightly better performance than G8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6205549 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Impact Journals LLC |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62055492018-11-09 Predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of SAOP2 and G8 Russo, Chiara Giannotti, Chiara Signori, Alessio Cea, Michele Murialdo, Roberto Ballestrero, Alberto Scabini, Stefano Romairone, Emanuele Odetti, Patrizio Nencioni, Alessio Monacelli, Fiammetta Oncotarget Research Paper OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), the gold standard for detecting frailty in elderly cancer patients, is time-consuming and hard to apply in routine clinical practice. Here we compared the performance of two screening tools for frailty, G8 and SAOP2 for their accuracy in identifying vulnerable patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We tested G8 and SAOP2 in 282 patients aged 65 or older with a diagnosis of solid cancer and candidate to undergo surgical, medical and/or radiotherapy treatment. CGA, including functional and cognitive status, depression, nutrition, comorbidity, social status and quality of life was used as reference. ROC curves were used to compare two screening tools. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 79 years and 54% were female. Colorectal and breast cancer were the most common types cancer (49% and 24%). Impaired CGA, G8, and SAOP2 were found in 62%, 89%, and 94% of the patients, respectively. SAOP2 had a better sensitivity (AUC 0.85, p<0.032) than G8 (AUC 0.79), with higher performance in breast cancer patients (AUC 0.93) and in patients aged 70-80 years (AUC 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: G8 and SAOP2 both showed good screening capacity for frailty in the cancer patient population we examined with SAOP2 showing a slightly better performance than G8. Impact Journals LLC 2018-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6205549/ /pubmed/30416679 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.26147 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Russo et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) (CC BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Paper Russo, Chiara Giannotti, Chiara Signori, Alessio Cea, Michele Murialdo, Roberto Ballestrero, Alberto Scabini, Stefano Romairone, Emanuele Odetti, Patrizio Nencioni, Alessio Monacelli, Fiammetta Predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of SAOP2 and G8 |
title | Predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of SAOP2 and G8 |
title_full | Predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of SAOP2 and G8 |
title_fullStr | Predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of SAOP2 and G8 |
title_full_unstemmed | Predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of SAOP2 and G8 |
title_short | Predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of SAOP2 and G8 |
title_sort | predictive values of two frailty screening tools in older patients with solid cancer: a comparison of saop2 and g8 |
topic | Research Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6205549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30416679 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.26147 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT russochiara predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT giannottichiara predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT signorialessio predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT ceamichele predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT murialdoroberto predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT ballestreroalberto predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT scabinistefano predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT romaironeemanuele predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT odettipatrizio predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT nencionialessio predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 AT monacellifiammetta predictivevaluesoftwofrailtyscreeningtoolsinolderpatientswithsolidcanceracomparisonofsaop2andg8 |