Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37653521›Full record

ArticleGlobal health research and policy2023

Geriatric assessment for older people with cancer: policy recommendations.

P A L Seghers, Shabbir M H Alibhai, Nicolò Matteo Luca Battisti, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Martine Extermann, Anita O'Donovan, Sophie Pilleron, Anna Rachelle Mislang, Najia Musolino, Kwok-Leung Cheung and 8 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health research and policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. SEOM-GEICAM-SOLTI clinical guidelines in advanced breast cancer (UPDATE 2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Unmet cancer rehabilitation needs and access to survivorship services across the cancer continuum.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Clinical Frailty Scale versus Geriatric-8 in predicting quality of life among older adults receiving curative cancer treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors at 15 institutions in 10 countries.

P A L SeghersDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Diakonessenhuis, 3582 KE, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Shabbir M H AlibhaiDepartment of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Nicolò Matteo Luca BattistiDepartment of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, London, SM2 5PT, UK.
Ravindran KanesvaranNational Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Martine ExtermannDepartment of Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Anita O'DonovanApplied Radiation Therapy Trinity (ARTT), School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Sophie PilleronNuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anna Rachelle MislangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia.
Najia MusolinoInternational Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG), International Environmental House 2, Chemin de Balexert 7-9, 1219, Chatelaine, Switzerland.
Kwok-Leung CheungSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Anthony StainesSchool of Nursing, Psychotherapy and Community Health, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Charis GirvalakiEuropean Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP), Brussels, Belgium.
Pierre SoubeyranDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Inserm U1312, SIRIC BRIO, Université de Bordeaux, 33076, Bordeaux, France.
Johanneke E A PortieljeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center-LUMC, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Siri RostoftDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Marije E HamakerDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Diakonessenhuis, 3582 KE, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dominic TrépelGlobal Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Shane O'HanlonDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, D04 T6F4, Ireland. Shaneohanlon@svhg.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9270-2768
Diakonessenhuis hospital · NLTrinity College Dublin · IEDublin City University · IEEuropean Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention · BEFlinders University · AULeiden University Medical Center · NLNational Cancer Centre Singapore · SGOslo University Hospital · NORoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversité de Bordeaux · FRUniversity College Dublin · IEUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most cancers occur in older people and the burden in this age group is increasing. Over the past two decades the evidence on how best to treat this population has increased rapidly. However, implementation of new best practices has been slow and needs involvement of policymakers. This perspective paper explains why older people with cancer have different needs than the wider population. An overview is given of the recommended approach for older people with cancer and its benefits on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In older patients, the geriatric assessment (GA) is the gold standard to measure level of fitness and to determine treatment tolerability. The GA, with multiple domains of physical health, functional status, psychological health and socio-environmental factors, prevents initiation of inappropriate oncologic treatment and recommends geriatric interventions to optimize the patient's general health and thus resilience for receiving treatments. Multiple studies have proven its benefits such as reduced toxicity, better quality of life, better patient-centred communication and lower healthcare use. Although GA might require investment of time and resources, this is relatively small compared to the improved outcomes, possible cost-savings and compared to the large cost of oncologic treatments as a whole.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentNeoplasmsAgedHumansMedical OncologyPolicyQuality of Life80 and overAgedDecision makingGeriatric assessmentHealth policyMedical oncologyNeoplasmsQuality of lifeSharedSurvivalToxicity

Identifiers

PMID37653521
PMCPMC10472678
OpenAlexW4386318595

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.