Predictive ability of the G8 screening test to determine probable sarcopenia and abnormal comprehensive geriatric assessment in older patients with solid malignancies.


Journal

BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 10 2021
Historique:
received: 17 04 2021
accepted: 07 10 2021
entrez: 20 10 2021
pubmed: 21 10 2021
medline: 28 10 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Pre-treatment evaluation for sarcopenia is recommended in cancer patients. New screening tests that are less time-consuming and can identify patients who will potentially benefit from geriatric assessment are being developed; the G8 geriatric screening test is one such example. We aimed to investigate whether the G8 screening test can detect probable sarcopenia and is valid and reliable compared to a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in Turkish older adults with solid cancers. We included solid cancer patients referred to a single center. Probable sarcopenia and abnormal CGA were defined as low handgrip strength. Cut-offs for handgrip strength in the Turkish population have been previously determined to be 32 kg for males and 22 kg for females and impairment in at least one of the CGA tests, respectively. The CGA tests comprised KATZ Basic Activities of Daily Living Scale Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, Mini-Mental-State Examination Scale, Geriatric Depression Scale-15, and Mini-Nutritional Assessment Short Form. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses evaluated the test's predictive ability. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities were assessed. The median age of the 76 patients included was 72 (65-91) years. There was a moderate correlation between handgrip strength and the G8 test total score. The sensitivity and specificity of the G8 test to detect probable sarcopenia alone (cut off score = 12.5) were 50 and 92%, respectively (AUC: 0.747; p < 0.001); to determine abnormal CGA plus probable sarcopenia (cut off score = 13) were 93.33 and 86.89%, respectively (AUC: 0.939; p < 0.001); and to detect abnormal CGA alone (cut off score = 14) were 79.63 and 95.45%, respectively (AUC: 0.893; p < 0.001). The G8 test results agreed with those of CGA (κ = 0.638; p < 0.001). Both inter- and intra-rater assessments of G8 scores revealed a strong agreement (Interclass correlation coefficient = 0.979, p < 0.001 and ρ = 0.994, p < 0.001, respectively). The Turkish version of the G8 test is a good screening tool to detect probable sarcopenia alone and in conjunction with abnormal CGA in older patients with solid malignancies. The G8 screening tool may thus be useful in detecting probable sarcopenia in Turkish older adults with solid cancers.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Pre-treatment evaluation for sarcopenia is recommended in cancer patients. New screening tests that are less time-consuming and can identify patients who will potentially benefit from geriatric assessment are being developed; the G8 geriatric screening test is one such example. We aimed to investigate whether the G8 screening test can detect probable sarcopenia and is valid and reliable compared to a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in Turkish older adults with solid cancers.
METHODS
We included solid cancer patients referred to a single center. Probable sarcopenia and abnormal CGA were defined as low handgrip strength. Cut-offs for handgrip strength in the Turkish population have been previously determined to be 32 kg for males and 22 kg for females and impairment in at least one of the CGA tests, respectively. The CGA tests comprised KATZ Basic Activities of Daily Living Scale Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, Mini-Mental-State Examination Scale, Geriatric Depression Scale-15, and Mini-Nutritional Assessment Short Form. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses evaluated the test's predictive ability. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities were assessed.
RESULTS
The median age of the 76 patients included was 72 (65-91) years. There was a moderate correlation between handgrip strength and the G8 test total score. The sensitivity and specificity of the G8 test to detect probable sarcopenia alone (cut off score = 12.5) were 50 and 92%, respectively (AUC: 0.747; p < 0.001); to determine abnormal CGA plus probable sarcopenia (cut off score = 13) were 93.33 and 86.89%, respectively (AUC: 0.939; p < 0.001); and to detect abnormal CGA alone (cut off score = 14) were 79.63 and 95.45%, respectively (AUC: 0.893; p < 0.001). The G8 test results agreed with those of CGA (κ = 0.638; p < 0.001). Both inter- and intra-rater assessments of G8 scores revealed a strong agreement (Interclass correlation coefficient = 0.979, p < 0.001 and ρ = 0.994, p < 0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
The Turkish version of the G8 test is a good screening tool to detect probable sarcopenia alone and in conjunction with abnormal CGA in older patients with solid malignancies. The G8 screening tool may thus be useful in detecting probable sarcopenia in Turkish older adults with solid cancers.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34666690
doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02544-9
pii: 10.1186/s12877-021-02544-9
pmc: PMC8524815
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

574

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Nutrients. 2021 Feb 26;13(3):
pubmed: 33652812
CMAJ. 2005 Aug 30;173(5):489-95
pubmed: 16129869
Gerontologist. 1969 Autumn;9(3):179-86
pubmed: 5349366
Age Ageing. 2019 Jan 1;48(1):16-31
pubmed: 30312372
J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 20;30(15):1829-34
pubmed: 22508806
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011 Jan;26(1):21-6
pubmed: 21157847
JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1187-93
pubmed: 9555758
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Nov;14(11):1357-1370
pubmed: 27799507
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020 Nov;32(11):2225-2232
pubmed: 31898172
Am J Med. 1992 Dec;93(6):663-9
pubmed: 1466363
Am J Public Health. 1994 Aug;84(8):1255-60
pubmed: 8059881
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Apr;57:58-67
pubmed: 26882087
Traffic Inj Prev. 2014;15(3):252-61
pubmed: 24372497
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
pubmed: 1202204
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Jul;68(7):1410-1418
pubmed: 32150289
Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug;23(8):2166-2172
pubmed: 22250183
J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 May;10(3):374-377
pubmed: 30343999
JAMA. 1963 Sep 21;185:914-9
pubmed: 14044222
JAMA. 2005 Mar 2;293(9):1073-81
pubmed: 15741529
Clin Geriatr Med. 2002 Nov;18(4):737-57
pubmed: 12608501
Br Med Bull. 2005 Jan 31;71:45-59
pubmed: 15684245
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005 Sep;55(3):241-52
pubmed: 16084735
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Jun;46(9):1502-13
pubmed: 20227872
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2006;22(4):312-9
pubmed: 16940725
Nutrition. 2019 Nov - Dec;67-68:110539
pubmed: 31522087
Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2002 Winter;13(4):273-81
pubmed: 12794644
BMJ. 2011 Oct 27;343:d6553
pubmed: 22034146
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Dec;21(12):3261-70
pubmed: 23872952
J Geriatr Oncol. 2013 Jan;4(1):32-8
pubmed: 24071490
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Mar;63(3):298-307
pubmed: 18375879
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 22;12(6):e0179694
pubmed: 28640844
Arch Intern Med. 1997 Feb 24;157(4):449-54
pubmed: 9046897
Biol Psychiatry. 2002 Aug 1;52(3):205-25
pubmed: 12182927
Oncologist. 2000;5(3):224-37
pubmed: 10884501
Int Psychogeriatr. 2000 Jun;12(2):163-72
pubmed: 10937537
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 20;32(15):1605-19
pubmed: 24733793
PeerJ. 2020 Feb 26;8:e8617
pubmed: 32149024
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2000 Feb;14(1):235-50, xi
pubmed: 10680080
Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2020 Mar;24(1):35-40
pubmed: 32743320
J Psychiatr Res. 1982-1983;17(1):37-49
pubmed: 7183759
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015 Jul-Aug;61(1):56-60
pubmed: 25944059
Clin Nutr. 2016 Dec;35(6):1557-1563
pubmed: 26922142
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;36(22):2326-2347
pubmed: 29782209
Ann Hematol. 2014 Jun;93(6):1031-40
pubmed: 24488257
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Sep;39(9 Pt 2):8S-16S; discussion 17S-18S
pubmed: 1832179
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015 Nov-Dec;61(3):344-50
pubmed: 26328478
Acta Clin Belg. 2020 Jun;75(3):200-204
pubmed: 30919742
Br J Psychiatry. 2000 Oct;177:336-42
pubmed: 11116775

Auteurs

Cagatay Cavusoglu (C)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. cagataycavusoglu@msn.com.

Gozde Tahtaci (G)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Oncology, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Rana Tuna Dogrul (RT)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Ibrahim Ileri (I)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Funda Yildirim (F)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Burcu Candemir (B)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Muhammet Cemal Kizilarslanoglu (MC)

Konya Education and Research Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Care, University of Health Sciences, Konya, Turkey.

Aytug Uner (A)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Oncology, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Berna Goker (B)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH