A Two-Step Frailty Assessment Strategy in Older Patients With Solid Tumors: A Decision Curve Analysis.
Journal
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
ISSN: 1527-7755
Titre abrégé: J Clin Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8309333
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2023
01 02 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
29
10
2022
medline:
1
2
2023
entrez:
28
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The intended clinical value of frailty screening is to identify unfit patients needing geriatric assessment (GA) and to prevent unnecessary GA in fit patients. These hypotheses rely on the sensitivity and specificity of screening tests, but they have not been verified. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of outpatients age ≥ 70 years with prostate, breast, colorectal, or lung cancer included in the ELCAPA cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02884375) between February 2007 and December 2019. The diagnostic accuracy of the G8 Geriatric Screening Tool (G8) and modified G8 scores for identifying unfit patients was determined on the basis of GA results. We used decision curve analysis to calculate the benefit of frailty screening for detecting unfit patients and avoiding unnecessary GA in fit patients across different threshold probabilities. We included 1,648 patients (median age, 81 years), and 1,428 (87%) were unfit. The sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 85% (95% CI, 84 to 87) and 59% (95% CI, 57 to 61) for G8, and 86% (95% CI, 84 to 87) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 63) for the modified G8 score. For decision curve analysis, the net benefit (NB) for identifying unfit patients were 0.72 for G8, 0.72 for the modified G8, and 0.82 for GA at a threshold probability of 0.25. At a threshold probability of 0.33, the NBs were 0.71, 0.72, and 0.80, respectively. At a threshold probability of 0.5, the NBs were 0.68, 0.69, and 0.73, respectively. No screening tool reduced unnecessary GA in fit patients at predefined threshold probabilities. Although frailty screening tests showed good diagnostic accuracy, screening showed no clinical benefits over the GA-for-all strategy. NB approaches, in addition to diagnostic accuracy, are necessary to assess the clinical value of tests.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36306481
doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01118
pmc: PMC9901978
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02884375']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
826-834Références
Acad Radiol. 2003 Jun;10(6):670-2
pubmed: 12809422
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Nov 01;7(11):e214158
pubmed: 34591080
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jan 1;32(1):19-26
pubmed: 24276775
J Oncol Pract. 2018 Feb;14(2):85-94
pubmed: 29436306
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 21;8(31):50393-50402
pubmed: 28881570
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2366-71
pubmed: 27185838
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 20;34(21):2534-40
pubmed: 27247223
BMJ. 2016 Jan 25;352:i6
pubmed: 26810254
J Geriatr Oncol. 2014 Jan;5(1):11-9
pubmed: 24484713
Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug;23(8):2166-2172
pubmed: 22250183
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Nov;44(11):1685-1702
pubmed: 30150158
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014 Dec;18(6):645-8
pubmed: 24954768
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021 Sep 20;19(9):1006-1019
pubmed: 34551388
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 11;9(12):e115060
pubmed: 25503576
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2595-603
pubmed: 25071125
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Mar;35(7):766-777
pubmed: 28095145
Age Ageing. 2021 Jan 8;50(1):96-104
pubmed: 33068107
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 1;29(22):2951-2
pubmed: 21690474
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Jun;46(9):1502-13
pubmed: 20227872
Med Decis Making. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):565-74
pubmed: 17099194
Ann Oncol. 2015 Feb;26(2):288-300
pubmed: 24936581
Ann Oncol. 2014 Jul;25(7):1270-1283
pubmed: 24638905
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Apr;13(4):e148-60
pubmed: 22469125
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Apr 01;7(4):616-627
pubmed: 33443547
J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 1;34(13):1476-83
pubmed: 26884557
Ann Oncol. 2017 May 01;28(5):1152-1157
pubmed: 28327973
Clin Interv Aging. 2014 Sep 29;9:1645-60
pubmed: 25302022
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;36(22):2326-2347
pubmed: 29782209
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 20;28(12):2046-50
pubmed: 20308657
Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243-262
pubmed: 33172724
Ann Oncol. 2013 Feb;24(2):494-500
pubmed: 23045516
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jan 04;14(1):
pubmed: 35008408
Eur Urol. 2018 Dec;74(6):796-804
pubmed: 30241973
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 20;29(27):3636-42
pubmed: 21709194
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Aug;148:17-26
pubmed: 35398191
Oncologist. 2016 Feb;21(2):188-95
pubmed: 26764250
Oncotarget. 2018 Oct 12;9(80):35056-35068
pubmed: 30416679
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):409-10
pubmed: 25626037
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 1;29(25):3457-65
pubmed: 21810685
Lancet. 2021 Nov 20;398(10314):1894-1904
pubmed: 34741815
BJU Int. 2010 Aug;106(4):462-9
pubmed: 20346033