Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29707115›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2018

Clinical implication of a quantitative frailty assessment tool for prognosis in patients with urological cancers.

Osamu Soma, Shingo Hatakeyama, Teppei Okamoto, Naoki Fujita, Teppei Matsumoto, Yuki Tobisawa, Tohru Yoneyama, Hayato Yamamoto, Takahiro Yoneyama, Yasuhiro Hashimoto and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Osamu SomaDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Shingo HatakeyamaDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Teppei OkamotoDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Naoki FujitaDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Teppei MatsumotoDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Yuki TobisawaDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Tohru YoneyamaDepartment of Advanced Transplant and Regenerative Medicine, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Hayato YamamotoDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Takahiro YoneyamaDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Yasuhiro HashimotoDepartment of Advanced Transplant and Regenerative Medicine, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Takuya KoieDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Shigeyuki NakajiDepartment of Social Medicine, Hirosaki University School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.
Chikara OhyamaDepartment of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOptimal tools for evaluating frailty among urological cancer patients remain unclear. We aimed to develop a quantitative frailty assessment tool comparing healthy individuals and urological cancer patients, and investigate the clinical implication of quantitative frailty on prognosis in urological cancer patients.

resultsGait speed, hemoglobin, serum albumin, exhaustion, and depression were significantly worse in patients with all types of cancers than in pair-matched controls. Frailty discriminant score (FDS) showed clear separation between controls and urological cancer patients, and significant association with the Fried criteria. Overall survivals were significantly shorter in patients with a higher score (>2.30) than in those with a lower score among nonprostate cancer (bladder, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma) patients. In prostate cancer patients, overall survivals were significantly shorter in patients with a higher score (>3.30) than in those with a lower score.

conclusionsFDS was significantly associated with frailty and prognosis in urological cancer patients. This tool for frailty assessment can help patients and physicians make more informed decisions. Further validation study is needed. MATERIALS AND

methodsTotal 605 urological cancer patients presenting to our hospital underwent a prospective frailty assessment. Controls were selected from 2280 community-dwelling subjects. Frailty was assessed via physical status, blood biochemical tests, and mental status. We compared frailty variables between pair-matched controls and urological cancer patients. We developed FDS using frailty variables, and compared with the Fried criteria. The influence of FDS on overall survivals was investigated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis.

Indexed as

frailtygait speedprostate cancerurological cancerurothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID29707115
PMCPMC5915123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.