Usefulness of the Barber test in compared with the comprehensive geriatric assessment for identifying disability in outpatients older than 65 years with breast cancer who receive chemotherapy

Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendations†

BACKGROUND

Screening tools are proposed to identify those older cancer patients in need of geriatric assessment (GA) and multidisciplinary approach. We aimed to update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on the use of screening tools.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SIOG composed a task group to review, interpret and discuss evidence on the use of screening tools in older cancer patients. A systematic review was carried out and discussed by an expert panel, leading to a consensus statement on their use.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies reporting on the use of 17 different screening tools in older cancer patients were identified. The tools most studied in older cancer patients are G8, Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST) and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13). Across all studies, the highest sensitivity was observed for: G8, fTRST, Oncogeriatric screen, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status, Senior Adult Oncology Program (SAOP) 2 screening and Gerhematolim. In 11 direct comparisons for detecting problems on a full GA, the G8 was more or equally sensitive than other instruments in all six comparisons, whereas results were mixed for the VES-13 in seven comparisons. In addition, different tools have demonstrated associations with outcome measures, including G8 and VES-13.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening tools do not replace GA but are recommended in a busy practice in order to identify those patients in need of full GA. If abnormal, screening should be followed by GA and guided multidisciplinary interventions. Several tools are available with different performance for various parameters (including sensitivity for addressing the need for further GA). Further research should focus on the ability of screening tools to build clinical pathways and to predict different outcome parameters.

Frailty screening methods for predicting outcome of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in elderly patients with cancer: a systematic review

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is done to detect vulnerability in elderly patients with cancer so that treatment can be adjusted accordingly; however, this process is time-consuming and pre-screening is often used to identify fit patients who are able to receive standard treatment versus those in whom a full CGA should be done. We aimed to assess which of the frailty screening methods available show the best sensitivity and specificity for predicting the presence of impairments on CGA in elderly patients with cancer. We did a systematic search of Medline and Embase, and a hand-search of conference abstracts, for studies on the association between frailty screening outcome and results of CGA in elderly patients with cancer. Our search identified 4440 reports, of which 22 publications from 14 studies, were included in this Review. Seven different frailty screening methods were assessed. The median sensitivity and specificity of each screening method for predicting frailty on CGA were as follows: Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13), 68% and 78%; Geriatric 8 (G8), 87% and 61%; Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST 1+; patient considered frail if one or more impairments present), 92% and 47%, Groningen Frailty Index (GFI) 57% and 86%, Fried frailty criteria 31% and 91%, Barber 59% and 79%, and abbreviated CGA (aCGA) 51% and 97%. However, even in case of the highest sensitivity, the negative predictive value was only roughly 60%. G8 and TRST 1+ had the highest sensitivity for frailty, but both had poor specificity and negative predictive value. These findings suggest that, for now, it might be beneficial for all elderly patients with cancer to receive a complete geriatric assessment, since available frailty screening methods have insufficient discriminative power to select patients for further assessment.