Prospective clinical trial evaluating vulnerability and chemotherapy risk using geriatric assessment tools in older patients with lung cancer

Aim In Japan, the number of older patients with cancer has been increasing. Assessment of performance status, cognitive function and social background is necessary for the treatment of older patients. The aims of the present study were: (i) to establish an evaluation system using electronic medical...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Geriatrics & gerontology international 2019-11, Vol.19 (11), p.1108-1111
Hauptverfasser: Tsubata, Yukari, Shiratsuki, Yohei, Okuno, Takae, Tanino, Akari, Nakao, Mika, Amano, Yoshihiro, Hotta, Takamasa, Hamaguchi, Megumi, Okimoto, Tamio, Hamaguchi, Shunichi, Kurimoto, Noriaki, Nishiyama, Yumi, Kimura, Tomohiro, Iwata, Haruko, Tsumoto, Shusaku, Isobe, Takeshi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim In Japan, the number of older patients with cancer has been increasing. Assessment of performance status, cognitive function and social background is necessary for the treatment of older patients. The aims of the present study were: (i) to establish an evaluation system using electronic medical records; and (ii) to distinguish older patients as fit versus vulnerable or frail according to a geriatric assessment (GA) system score. Methods We incorporated GA tools in our electronic medical records system and carried out comprehensive assessments for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer aged ≥65 years. The decision about primary treatment followed consultation with the clinical team and was not guided by GA scores. Subsequent treatment and outcomes were recorded. Results A total of 100 patients had completed GA. The average age was 75 years (range 65–94 years). Regarding GA results, 63% were positive on the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment 7, 39% on the Vulnerable Elderly Survey‐13 and 84% on the Geriatric 8. The percentage of vulnerable patients (positive on all three GA) was significantly higher in the non‐standard therapy group (n = 19) than in the standard therapy group (n = 81; 78.9% vs 21.0%, P
ISSN:1444-1586
1447-0594
1447-0594
DOI:10.1111/ggi.13781