Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38923791›Full record

ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2024

A single-centre study evaluating a geriatric screening tool in oncology phase I trial patients.

Mary Van Zyl, Anne Barell, Bridget Cooley, Janet Hanwell, Josie Parlak, Udai Banerji, Johann De Bono, Adam Sharp, Juanita Lopez, Nicolo Matteo Luca Battisti and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Mary Van ZylDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.ORCID 0009-0004-4890-1470
Anne BarellSenior Adult Oncology Programme, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK.
Bridget CooleyDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Janet HanwellDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Josie ParlakDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Udai BanerjiDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Johann De BonoDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Adam SharpDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Juanita LopezDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.
Nicolo Matteo Luca BattistiSenior Adult Oncology Programme, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1063-1717
Anna MinchomDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Cancer Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThough cancer is more prevalent in the older population, this patient group are underrepresented in phase I oncology trials.

aimsWe evaluated the use of a geriatric screening tool (SAOP3) in patients of 70 years of age or older who attended a Phase I Clinical Trials Unit, with the aim of assessing the feasibility of the tool and identifying potential unmet needs in this patient group.

methodsTwenty-two patients over the age of 70 completed the SAOP3 questionnaire. Geriatric impairments and needs were analysed with descriptive statistics. Qualitative responses were grouped in themes using structured thematic analysis.

resultsAll of patients triggered at least 1 geriatric domain, most commonly mobility. Six core themes were identified as being important to the patient including family, friends and positivity. On cognition assessment over 20% of patients triggered as requiring further cognitive assessment. The group had a relatively high screen fail risk.

conclusionIn conclusion, routine geriatric screening withSAOP3 was feasible and identified areas of patient need. Results highlight the prevalence of psychological distress and cognitive impairment. Geriatric screening offers an opportunity for prehabilitation prior to trial and support during trial participation to optimise safety and improve trial access.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicGeriatric AssessmentNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overCognitive DysfunctionFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningSurveys and Questionnairesclinical trialgeriatric assessmentphase I

Identifiers

PMID38923791
PMCPMC11199084

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.