Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38937703›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2024

Frequency of use and characterization of frailty assessments in observational studies on older women with breast cancer: a systematic review.

Dafne N Sanchez, Marloes G M Derks, Jose A Verstijnen, Dominik Menges, Johanneke E A Portielje, Frederiek Van den Bos, Esther Bastiaannet

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Dafne N SanchezEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zürich, Hirschengraben 82, Zurich, CH-8001, Switzerland.
Marloes G M DerksDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jose A VerstijnenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Dominik MengesEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zürich, Hirschengraben 82, Zurich, CH-8001, Switzerland.
Johanneke E A PortieljeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Frederiek Van den BosDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Esther BastiaannetEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zürich, Hirschengraben 82, Zurich, CH-8001, Switzerland. esther.bastiaannet@uzh.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer and frailty frequently co-occur in older women, and frailty status has been shown to predict negative health outcomes. However, the extent to which frailty assessments are utilized in observational research for the older breast cancer population is uncertain. Therefore, the aim of this review was to determine the frequency of use of frailty assessments in studies investigating survival or mortality, and characterize them, concentrating on literature from the past 5 years (2017-2022).

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were systematically queried to identify observational studies (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional) published from 2017-2022 that focus on older females (≥ 65 years) diagnosed with breast cancer, and which evaluate survival or mortality outcomes. Independent reviewers assessed the studies for eligibility using Covidence software. Extracted data included characteristics of each study as well as information on study design, study population, frailty assessments, and related health status assessments. Risk of bias was evaluated using the appropriate JBI tool. Information was cleaned, classified, and tabulated into review level summaries.

resultsIn total, 9823 studies were screened for inclusion. One-hundred and thirty studies were included in the final synthesis. Only 11 (8.5%) of these studies made use of a frailty assessment, of which 4 (3.1%) quantified frailty levels in their study population, at baseline. Characterization of frailty assessments demonstrated that there is a large variation in terms of frailty definitions and resulting patient classification (i.e., fit, pre-frail, frail). In the four studies that quantified frailty, the percentage of individuals classified as pre-frail and frail ranged from 18% to 29% and 0.7% to 21%, respectively. Identified frailty assessments included the Balducci score, the Geriatric 8 tool, the Adapted Searle Deficits Accumulation Frailty index, the Faurot Frailty index, and the Mian Deficits of Accumulation Frailty Index, among others. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was the most used alternative health status assessment, employed in 56.9% of all 130 studies. Surprisingly, 31.5% of all studies did not make use of any health status assessments.

conclusionFew observational studies examining mortality or survival outcomes in older women with breast cancer incorporate frailty assessments. Additionally, there is significant variation in definitions of frailty and classification of patients. While comorbidity assessments were more frequently included, the pivotal role of frailty for patient-centered decision-making in clinical practice, especially regarding treatment effectiveness and tolerance, necessitates more deliberate attention. Addressing this oversight more explicitly could enhance our ability to interpret observational research in older cancer patients.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentObservational Studies as TopicAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFrail ElderlyHumansBreast neoplasmsElderly healthFrailtyGeriatric assessmentSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38937703
PMCPMC11212278

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.