Use of the Freund Clock Drawing Test within the Mini-Cog as a screening tool for cognitive impairment in elderly patients with or without cancer

The diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog screening tool for the detection of cognitive impairment-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Mini-Cog is a rapid screening tool that can be administered to older adults to detect cognitive impairment (CI); however, the accuracy of the Mini-Cog to detect CI for older patients in various healthcare settings is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog to screen for cognitive impairment in older patients across different healthcare settings.

METHODS/DESIGN

We searched nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase) from inception to January 2023. We included studies with patients ≥60 years old undergoing screening for cognitive impairment using the Mini-Cog across all healthcare settings. A cut-off of ≤ 2/5 was used to classify dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and cognitive impairment (defined as either MCI or dementia) across various settings. The diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog was assessed against gold standard references such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate accuracy and diagnostic ability. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 criteria.

RESULTS

The systematic search resulted in 4,265 articles and 14 studies were included for analysis. To detect dementia (six studies, n = 4772), the Mini-Cog showed 76% sensitivity and 83% specificity. To detect MCI (two studies, n = 270), it showed 84% sensitivity and 79% specificity. To detect CI (eight studies, n = 2152), it had 67% sensitivity and 83% specificity. In the primary care setting, to detect either MCI, dementia, or CI (eight studies, n = 5620), the Mini-Cog demonstrated 73% sensitivity and 84% specificity. Within the secondary care setting (seven studies, n = 1499), the Mini-Cog to detect MCI, dementia or CI demonstrated 73% sensitivity and 76% specificity. A high or unclear risk of bias persisted in the patient selection and timing domain.

CONCLUSIONS

The Mini-Cog is a quick and freely available screening tool and has high sensitivity and specificity to screen for CI in older adults across various healthcare settings. It is a practical screening tool for use in time-sensitive and resource-limited healthcare settings.

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

Predicting Functional Recovery and Quality of Life in Older Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Real-World Data From the International GOSAFE Study

PURPOSE

The GOSAFE study evaluates risk factors for failing to achieve good quality of life (QoL) and functional recovery (FR) in older patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients age 70 years and older undergoing major elective colorectal surgery were prospectively enrolled. Frailty assessment was performed and outcomes, including QoL (EQ-5D-3L) recorded (3/6 months postoperatively). Postoperative FR was defined as a combination of Activity of Daily Living ≥5 + Timed Up & Go test <20 seconds + MiniCog >2.

RESULTS

Prospective complete data were available for 625/646 consecutive patients (96.9%; 435 colon and 190 rectal cancer), 52.6% men, and median age was 79.0 years (IQR, 74.6-82.9 years). Surgery was minimally invasive in 73% of patients (321/435 colon; 135/190 rectum). At 3-6 months, 68.9%-70.3% patients experienced equal/better QoL (72.8%-72.9% colon, 60.1%-63.9% rectal cancer). At logistic regression analysis, preoperative Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool ≥2 (3-month odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.73; P = .034, 6-month OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.75; P = .027) and postoperative complications (3-month OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.42; P = .008, 6-month OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.68; P = .02) are associated with decreased QoL after colectomy. Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2 is a strong predictor of postoperative QoL decline in the rectal cancer subgroup (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.45 to 9.92; P = .006). FR was reported by 254/323 (78.6%) patients with colon and 94/133 (70.6%) with rectal cancer. Charlson Age Comorbidity Index ≥7 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.26 to 5.32; P = .009), ECOG ≥2 (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.36 to 7.20; P = .007 colon; OR, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 14.63; P = .009 rectal surgery), severe complications (OR, 17.33; 95% CI, 7.30 to 40.8; P < .001), fTRST ≥2 (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.40 to 5.25; P = .003), and palliative surgery (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.29 to 13.07; P = .017) are risk factors for not achieving FR.

CONCLUSION

The majority of older patients experience good QoL and stay independent after colorectal cancer surgery. Predictors for failing to achieve these essential outcomes are now defined to guide patients' and families' preoperative counseling.

Assessing and managing frailty in emergency laparotomy: a WSES position paper

Many countries are facing an aging population. As people live longer, surgeons face the prospect of operating on increasingly older patients. Traditional teaching is that with older age, these patients face an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, even to a level deemed too prohibitive for surgery. However, this is not always true. An active 90-year-old patient can be much fitter than an overweight, sedentary 65-year-old patient with comorbidities. Recent literature shows that frailty-an age-related cumulative decline in multiple physiological systems, is therefore a better predictor of mortality and morbidity than chronological age alone. Despite recognition of frailty as an important tool in identifying vulnerable surgical patients, many surgeons still shun objective tools. The aim of this position paper was to perform a review of the existing literature and to provide recommendations on emergency laparotomy and in frail patients. This position paper was reviewed by an international expert panel composed of 37 experts who were asked to critically revise the manuscript and position statements. The position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. We shall present the derived statements upon which a consensus was reached, specifying the quality of the supporting evidence and suggesting future research directions.

Practical Implementation of the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment to Optimise Care for Older Adults with Cancer

Whilst cancer remains a very serious health problem at any stage, cancer combined with increasing age creates an even more challenging situation for health care providers [...].

Mini-Cog for the detection of dementia within a primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia are becoming increasingly common with the aging of most populations. The majority of individuals with dementia will first present for care and assessment in primary care settings. There is a need for brief dementia screening instruments that can accurately detect dementia in primary care settings. The Mini-Cog is a brief, cognitive screening test that is frequently used to evaluate cognition in older adults in various settings.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the accuracy of the Mini-Cog for detecting dementia in a primary care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, initially to September 2012. Since then, four updates to the search were performed using the same search methods, and the most recent was January 2017. We used citation tracking (using the databases' 'related articles' feature, where available) as an additional search method and contacted authors of eligible studies for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only included studies that evaluated the Mini-Cog as an index test for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia or related forms of dementia when compared to a reference standard using validated criteria for dementia. We only included studies that were conducted in primary care populations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted and described information on the characteristics of the study participants and study setting. Using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria we evaluated the quality of studies, and we assessed risk of bias and applicability of each study for each domain in QUADAS-2. Two review authors independently extracted information on the true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives and entered the data into Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). We then used RevMan 5 to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals. We summarized the sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies in forest plots and also plotted them in a receiver operating characteristic plot. We also created a 'Risk of bias' and applicability concerns graph to summarize information related to the quality of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

There were a total of four studies that met our inclusion criteria, including a total of 1517 total participants. The sensitivity of the Mini-Cog varied between 0.76 to 1.00 in studies while the specificity varied between 0.27 to 0.85. The included studies displayed significant heterogeneity in both methodologies and clinical populations, which did not allow for a meta-analysis to be completed. Only one study (Holsinger 2012) was found to be at low risk of bias on all methodological domains. The results of this study reported that the sensitivity of the Mini-Cog was 0.76 and the specificity was 0.73. We found the quality of all other included studies to be low due to a high risk of bias with methodological limitations primarily in their selection of participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a limited number of studies evaluating the accuracy of the Mini-Cog for the diagnosis of dementia in primary care settings. Given the small number of studies, the wide range in estimates of the accuracy of the Mini-Cog, and methodological limitations identified in most of the studies, at the present time there is insufficient evidence to recommend that the Mini-Cog be used as a screening test for dementia in primary care. Further studies are required to determine the accuracy of Mini-Cog in primary care and whether this tool has sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to be useful as a screening test in this setting.

Functional recovery in senior adults undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer: Assessment tools and strategies to preserve functional status

Colorectal cancer is a widely-recognized aging-associated disease. Recent advances in the care of senior colorectal cancer patients has led to similar cancer-related life expectancy for older patients when compared to their younger counterparts. Recent data suggests that onco-geriatric patients place as much value on maintenance of functional independence and quality of life after treatment as they do on the potential improvements in survival that a treatment might offer. As a result, there has been significant interest in the geriatric literature surrounding the concept of "functional recovery," a multidimensional outcome metric that takes into account several domains, including physical, physiologic, psychological, social, and economic wellbeing. This review introduces the concept of functional recovery and highlights a number of predictors of post-treatment functional trajectory, including several office-based tools that clinicians can use to help guide informed decision making surrounding potential treatment options. This review also highlights a number of validated metrics that can be used to assess a patient's progress in functional recovery after surgery. While the timeline of each individual's functional recovery may vary, most data suggests that if patients are to return to their pre-operative functional status, this could occur up to 6 months post-surgery. For those patients identified to be at risk for post-operative functional decline this review also delineates strategies for prehabilitation and rehabilitation that may improve functional outcomes.

The Effect of a Geriatric Oncology Clinic on Treatment Decisions in Mexican Older Adults With Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Geriatric assessment and interventions improve the care of older adults with cancer, but their effect on treatment decision making in resource-limited settings is unknown. We studied the effect of recommendations made by a consultative geriatric oncology clinic on treatment decision making by oncologists in Mexico.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective chart review of 173 consecutive patients with solid tumors referred before treatment initiation to the geriatric oncology clinic at a third-level public hospital in Mexico City between March 2015 and October 2017. Patients were evaluated by a multidisciplinary geriatric oncology clinic, and treatment recommendations were issued to treating oncologists.

MEASUREMENTS

We determined the overall proportion of agreement between geriatric oncology recommendations and oncologists' treatment decisions. We assessed whether agreement increased when geriatric oncology recommendations were acknowledged in the treating oncologist's clinic note. The homogeneity of agreement was tested using the Stuart-Maxwell test.

RESULTS

Median age was 79 years (range = 64-97 years). "Standard treatment" was recommended in 48% of cases, followed by "less intensive treatment" in 32%, and "best supportive care" in 20%. The overall proportion of agreement for the entire population was 80% (κ = 0.69), although agreement was heterogeneous (X² = 8.16, P = .02). Geriatric oncology recommendations were acknowledged in the treating oncologists' notes in 62% of cases. Overall agreement was higher when the evaluation was acknowledged (83%, κ = 0.74) than when it was not acknowledged (74%, κ = 0.60). Agreement was homogeneous only when recommendations were acknowledged in the oncologist's note (X² = 3.0, P = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall proportion of agreement between geriatric oncology recommendations and final treatment decisions was high, particularly when recommendations were acknowledged in the treating oncologists' note. Including geriatric oncology evaluations in everyday clinical practice and fostering interdisciplinary communication between geriatric oncology and treating oncologists may provide valuable guidance for physicians caring for older patients with cancer in resource-limited settings. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:992-997, 2019.

The use of uHear™ to screen for hearing loss in older patients with cancer as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment

OBJECTIVE

We previously validated uHear™ to screen for hearing loss in older patients with cancer without a known hearing loss, as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). In view of low specificity, we tested a new modified uHear™ scoring system as described by Handzel.

METHODS

Patients, aged ≥70 years, were evaluated by uHear™ and conventional audiometry, which is considered the gold standard, as part of a CGA. The pass or fail screening cut-off for uHear™ was defined as having ≥2 consecutive hearing grades starting from the moderate-severe threshold zone ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 kHz (modified Handzel-uHear™ scoring system). To accept the modified Handzel-uHear™ as screening tool, it was predefined that the combined sensitivity (S) and specificity (Sp) of the test (S + Sp/2) was at least 80% and that an actual combined (S + Sp)/2 of 90% would be found.

RESULTS

Ninety ears (45 subjects) were tested. Of those ears, 24.4% were identified as impaired by conventional audiometry. Modified Handzel-uHear™ identified 26.7% of tested ears as impaired. The combined (S + Sp)/2 of the modified Handzel-uHear™ was calculated as 77.5%, while in previous cohort, this was retrospectively calculated as 94.6%. A new uHear™ scoring system was proposed and tested in current and previous cohort. A (S + Sp)/2 of 80.2 and 78.8%, respectively, were obtained.

CONCLUSION

uHear™ is a feasible tool for use within the CGA and shows promising results. However, further research is warranted to optimize the cut-off method before it could be routinely implemented within geriatric oncology.

Mini-Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias within a primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia are becoming increasingly common with the aging of most populations. The majority of individuals with dementia will first present for care and assessment in primary care settings. There is a need for brief dementia screening instruments that can accurately diagnose dementia in primary care settings. The Mini-Cog is a brief, cognitive screening test that is frequently used to evaluate cognition in older adults in various settings.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease dementia and related dementias in a primary care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, initially to September 2012. Since then, four updates to the search were performed using the same search methods, and the most recent was January 2017. We used citation tracking (using the databases' 'related articles' feature, where available) as an additional search method and contacted authors of eligible studies for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only included studies that evaluated the Mini-Cog as an index test for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia or related forms of dementia when compared to a reference standard using validated criteria for dementia. We only included studies that were conducted in primary care populations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted and described information on the characteristics of the study participants and study setting. Using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria we evaluated the quality of studies, and we assessed risk of bias and applicability of each study for each domain in QUADAS-2. Two review authors independently extracted information on the true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives and entered the data into Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). We then used RevMan 5 to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals. We summarized the sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies in forest plots and also plotted them in a receiver operating characteristic plot. We also created a 'Risk of bias' and applicability concerns graph to summarize information related to the quality of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

There were a total of four studies that met our inclusion criteria, including a total of 1517 total participants. The sensitivity of the Mini-Cog varied between 0.76 to 1.00 in studies while the specificity varied between 0.27 to 0.85. The included studies displayed significant heterogeneity in both methodologies and clinical populations, which did not allow for a meta-analysis to be completed. Only one study (Holsinger 2012) was found to be at low risk of bias on all methodological domains. The results of this study reported that the sensitivity of the Mini-Cog was 0.76 and the specificity was 0.73. We found the quality of all other included studies to be low due to a high risk of bias with methodological limitations primarily in their selection of participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a limited number of studies evaluating the accuracy of the Mini-Cog for the diagnosis of dementia in primary care settings. Given the small number of studies, the wide range in estimates of the accuracy of the Mini-Cog, and methodological limitations identified in most of the studies, at the present time there is insufficient evidence to recommend that the Mini-Cog be used as a screening test for dementia in primary care. Further studies are required to determine the accuracy of Mini-Cog in primary care and whether this tool has sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to be useful as a screening test in this setting.

A review of cognitive screening tools in cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is highly prevalent, and assessment of cognition is crucial in providing optimal cancer care. Neuropsychological assessment (NPA) can be lengthy and expensive. Cognitive screening tools are plenty but validity has not been thoroughly studied for use in cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our search of the recent literature revealed that the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Clock Draw Test were the most frequently studied objective screening tools. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function and the Cognitive Symptom Checklist-Work 21 were the most commonly studied subjective measures of perceived cognitive impairment. Evidence supports using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment or the Clock Draw Test over the Mini-Mental State Examination to screen for cognitive impairment within specific patient populations. In addition, adding a subjective measure of cognitive impairment (e.g., Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function) may increase diagnostic sensitivity.

SUMMARY

These suggest that cognitive screening tools may have a role in screening for CRCI, particularly when full NPA is not feasible. Researchers must continue to conduct high-quality studies to build an evidence to guide best practices in screening for CRCI.

Definition of Unfit for Standard Acute Myeloid Leukemia Therapy

Determining who is fit or unfit for standard treatments among older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains a challenge. However, available evidence can provide guidance on strategies to assess and categorize fitness. Evidence is strongest to guide identification of "frail" older adults at the time of diagnosis based on performance status, physical function, and comorbidity. Many older adults, with adequate performance status and comorbidity burden, however, may be better characterized as "vulnerable". These patients have subclinical impairments that limit resilience when stressed with intensive therapies. More sensitive assessment strategies are needed to differentiate fit and vulnerable older adults regardless of chronologic age. Research is ongoing to identify tools and approaches, such as geriatric assessment, that can enhance characterization of fitness for AML therapies. This review will highlight available evidence for assessment of fitness among older adults with AML and discuss implications for practice and research.

Bladder cancer in the elderly patient: challenges and solutions

Bladder cancer (BC) is an age-associated malignancy with increased prevalence in the elderly population. Elderly patients are a vulnerable population at increased risk for treatment-related toxicity secondary to medical comorbidities and geriatric syndromes. As a result, this population has been historically undertreated and suffers worse disease-specific outcomes than younger patients with BC. Recognition of this disparity has led to efforts to individualize treatment decisions based on functional status rather than chronologic age in an effort to optimize the use of curative therapies for the fit elderly and modify treatments to reduce the risk of toxicity and disease-related morbidity in vulnerable or frail patients. The comprehensive geriatric assessment is a decision framework that helps to balance underlying health considerations and risks of therapy with aggressiveness of the cancer. Development of systemic therapies with increased efficacy against BC and reduced toxicity are eagerly awaited, as are techniques and interventions to reduce the morbidity from surgery and radiation for patients with BC.

Prostate Cancer in the Elderly Patient

Treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) has evolved significantly over the last decade. PCa is the most prevalent non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men, and it has an increased incidence and prevalence in older men. As a result, physicians and patients are faced with the challenge of identifying optimal treatment strategies for localized, biochemical recurrent, and advanced PCa in the older population. When older patients are appropriately selected, treatment for PCa results in survival benefits and toxicity profiles similar to those experienced in younger patients. However, underlying health status and age-related changes can have an impact on tolerance of hormonal therapy and chemotherapy in men with advanced disease. Therefore, the heterogeneity of the elderly population necessitates a multidimensional assessment to maximize the benefit of medical and/or surgical options. Providing clinicians with the requisite health status data on which to base treatment decisions would help ensure that older patients with PCa receive optimal therapy if it will benefit them and/or active surveillance or best supportive care if it will not. We provide a review of the existing evidence to date on the management of PCa in the older population.

Serial comprehensive geriatric assessment in elderly head and neck cancer patients undergoing curative radiotherapy identifies evolution of multidimensional health problems and is indicative of quality of life

Head and neck (H&N) cancer is mainly a cancer of the elderly; however, the implementation of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) to quantify functional age in these patients has not yet been studied. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of screening tools [Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13), G8 and the Combined Screening Tool 'VES-13 + (17-G8)' or CST], the feasibility of serial CGA, and correlations with health-related quality of life evolution [HRQOL; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires (EORTC QLQ)-C30 and -HN35] during therapy in hundred patients, aged ≥65 years, with primary H&N cancer undergoing curative radio(chemo)therapy. Respectively 36.8%, 69.0%, 62.1% and 71.3% were defined vulnerable according to VES-13, G8, CST and CGA at week 0, mostly due to presence of severe grade co-morbidities, difficulties in community functioning and nutritional problems. At week 4, significantly more patients were identified vulnerable due to nutritional, functional and emotional deterioration. The CST did not achieve the predefined proportion necessary for validation. Vulnerable patients reported lower function and higher symptom HRQOL scores as compared with fit patients. A comparable deterioration in HRQOL was observed in both groups through therapy. In conclusion, G8 remains the screening tool of choice. Serial CGA identifies the evolution of multidimensional health problems and HRQOL conditions during therapy with potential to guide individualised supportive care.