Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37027521›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2023

External Validity of Two Scores for Predicting the Risk of Chemotherapy Toxicity Among Older Patients With Solid Tumors: Results From the ELCAPA Prospective Cohort.

Maxime Frelaut, Elena Paillaud, Guillaume Beinse, Anne-Laure Scain, Stéphane Culine, Christophe Tournigand, Johanne Poisson, Sylvie Bastuji-Garin, Florence Canoui-Poitrine, Philippe Caillet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Predictive value of the Cancer and Aging Research Group Score for chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Maxime FrelautGustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Department of Medical Oncology, Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0263-7094
Elena PaillaudUniv. Paris Est Créteil, Inserm U955, IMRB, Créteil, France.
Guillaume BeinseAP-HP, Cochin Hospital, Department of Clinical Oncology, Paris, France.
Anne-Laure ScainAP-HP, Henri Mondor Hospital, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Créteil, France.
Stéphane CulineParis-Sorbonne University, Hemato-Immunology Research Department, CEA, Paris, France.
Christophe TournigandAP-HP, Henri Mondor Hospital, Department of Clinical Oncology, Créteil, France.
Johanne PoissonAP-HP, Paris Cancer Institute CARPEM, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Paris, France.
Sylvie Bastuji-GarinUniv. Paris Est Créteil, Inserm U955, IMRB, Créteil, France.
Florence Canoui-PoitrineUniv. Paris Est Créteil, Inserm U955, IMRB, Créteil, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9970-6051
Philippe CailletUniv. Paris Est Créteil, Inserm U955, IMRB, Créteil, France.
Inserm · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCommissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives · FRInstitut Gustave Roussy · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSevere chemotherapy-related toxicities are frequent among older patients. The Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients (CRASH) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Study (CARG) score were both developed to predict these events. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe objective of this study was to evaluate the scores' predictive performance in a prospective cohort, which included patients aged 70 years and older referred for a geriatric assessment prior to chemotherapy for a solid tumor. The main endpoints were grades 3/4/5 toxicities for the CARG score and grades 4/5 hematologic toxicities and grades 3/4/5 non-hematologic toxicities for the CRASH score.

resultsA total of 248 patients were included, of which 150 (61%) and 126 (51%) experienced at least one severe adverse event as defined respectively in CARG and CRASH studies. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly greater in the intermediate and high-risk CARG groups than in the low-risk group (odds ratio (OR) [95% CI] = 0.3 [0.1-1.4] (P = .1) and 0.4 [0.1-1.7], respectively). The area under curve (AUC) was 0.55. Similarly, the incidence of severe toxicities was no greater in the intermediate-low, intermediate-high, and high-risk CRASH groups than in the low-risk CRASH group (OR [95%CI] = 1 [0.3-3.6], 1 [0.3-3.4], and 1.5 [0.3-8.1], respectively). The AUC was 0.52. The type of cancer, performance status, comorbidities, body mass index, and MAX2 index were independently associated with grades 3/4/5 toxicities.

conclusionIn an external cohort of older patients referred for a pretherapeutic GA, the CARG and CRASH scores were poor predictors of the risk of chemotherapy severe toxicities.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overGeriatric AssessmentHumansProspective StudiesRisk FactorsAntineoplastic Agentsagedantineoplastic agentsgeriatric assessmentneoplasmstoxicity

Identifiers

PMID37027521
PMCPMC10243790
OpenAlexW4362706486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.