Search

Background: The aim of this study was to determine and compare the added prognostic value of screening tools, geriatric assessment (GA) components, and GA summaries to clinical information for overall survival (OS) in older patients with cancer.Methods: A screening and a 10-item GA were systematically performed in patients ≥70 years old with cancer. Cox regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the added prognostic value for OS of screening tools, GA, and GA summaries to clinical information (age, stage, and tumor type) in 2 cohorts (A and B). Cox models were compared on the basis of the Akaike information criterion and the concordance probability estimate. The 2 cohorts for the analyses were similar but independent.Results: A complete case analysis was available for 763 patients (median age, 76 years) in cohort A and for 402 patients (median age, 77 years) in cohort B. In both cohorts, most individual GA components were independent prognostic factors for OS. Nutritional status (assessed with the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form) and functional status (assessed with the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living) consistently displayed a strong capacity to predict OS. Less consistent results were found for screening tools. GA summaries performed the best in comparison with the screening tools and the individual GA components.Conclusions: Most individual GA components, especially nutritional status and functional status, are prognostic factors for OS in older patients with cancer. GA summaries provide more prognostic information than individual GA components but only moderately improve the prognostic baseline model with clinical information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of laboratory parameters and geriatric assessment (GA) in addition to a baseline model with clinical information regarding overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer.Methods: GA was systematically performed in patients aged ≥70 years. The baseline model consisted of age, tumor type, and stage of disease. The incremental prognostic values of the GA as a whole (10-item GA) and laboratory parameters were assessed separately and combined. The parameters included hemoglobin (Hb), albumin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS). Analyses were conducted with continuous and dichotomized variables. Cox models were compared based on Akaike information criterion (ΔAIC) and their discriminatory ability was assessed using the concordance probability estimate (CPE).Results: A total of 328 patients were considered for this analysis. The baseline model had a CPE of 0.725. The addition of CRP, albumin, and Hb combined resulted in the best performing model (ΔAIC: 40.12 and CPE: 0.757) among the laboratory parameters. However, the 10-item GA improved the baseline model even more (ΔAIC: 46.03 and CPE: 0.769). Similar results were observed in the analysis with dichotomous variables. The addition of the 3 laboratory parameters (CRP, albumin, and Hb) improved the CPE by 1.4% compared with the baseline model already extended with the 10-item GA. The CPE increase (1.7%) was the highest with the GPS in the analysis with dichotomous variables.Conclusions: GA appears to add slightly more prognostic information than laboratory parameters in addition to clinical information. The laboratory parameters have an additional prognostic value beyond clinical and geriatric information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]