Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35008408›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Predicting Frailty and Geriatric Interventions in Older Cancer Patients: Performance of Two Screening Tools for Seven Frailty Definitions-ELCAPA Cohort.

Claudia Martinez-Tapia, Marie Laurent, Elena Paillaud, Philippe Caillet, Emilie Ferrat, Jean-Léon Lagrange, Jean-Paul Rwabihama, Mylène Allain, Anne Chahwakilian, Pascaline Boudou-Rouquette and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Two-Step Frailty Assessment Strategy in Older Patients With Solid Tumors: A Decision Curve Analysis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Claudia Martinez-TapiaUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.
Marie LaurentUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.
Elena PaillaudUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5579-9927
Philippe CailletUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.
Emilie FerratUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8885-9634
Jean-Léon LagrangeDepartment of Medical Oncology, AP-HP, Hôpital Henri-Mondor, F-94010 Creteil, France.
Jean-Paul RwabihamaUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.
Mylène AllainUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.
Anne ChahwakilianOncogeriatrics, Geriatric Department, AP-HP, Hôpital Broca, F-75013 Paris, France.
Pascaline Boudou-RouquetteDepartment of Medical Oncology, AP-HP, Hôpital Cochin, F-75014 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4860-305X
Sylvie Bastuji-GarinUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.
Etienne AudureauUniversité Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Creteil, France.
Inserm · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRHôpital Cochin · FR

Funding

French National Cancer Institute #RINC4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening tools have been developed to identify patients warranting a complete geriatric assessment (GA). However, GA lacks standardization and does not capture important aspects of geriatric oncology practice. We measured and compared the diagnostic performance of screening tools G8 and modified G8 according to multiple clinically relevant reference standards. We included 1136 cancer patients ≥ 70 years old referred for GA (ELCAPA cohort; median age, 80 years; males, 52%; main locations: digestive (36.3%), breast (16%), and urinary tract (14.8%); metastases, 43.5%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) estimates were compared between both tools against: (1) the detection of ≥1 or (2) ≥2 GA impairments, (3) the prescription of ≥1 geriatric intervention and the identification of an unfit profile according to (4) a latent class typology, expert-based classifications from (5) Balducci, (6) the International Society of Geriatric Oncology task force (SIOG), or using (7) a GA frailty index according to the Rockwood accumulation of deficits principle. AUROC values were ≥0.80 for both tools under all tested definitions. They were statistically significantly higher for the modified G8 for six reference standards: ≥1 GA impairment (0.93 vs. 0.89), ≥2 GA impairments (0.90 vs. 0.87), ≥1 geriatric intervention (0.85 vs. 0.81), unfit according to Balducci (0.86 vs. 0.80) and SIOG classifications (0.88 vs. 0.83), and according to the GA frailty index (0.86 vs. 0.84). Our findings demonstrate the robustness of both screening tools against different reference standards, with evidence of better diagnostic performance of the modified G8.

Indexed as

frailtygeriatric assessmentreference standardsensitivity and specificitysurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35008408
PMCPMC8750824
OpenAlexW4206354975

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.