| |
著者: Hans Wildiers, Pieter Heeren, Martine Puts, Eva Topinkova, Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen, Martine Extermann, Claire Falandry, Andrew Artz, Etienne Brain, Giuseppe Colloca, Johan Flamaing, Theodora Karnakis, Cindy Kenis, Riccardo A Audisio, Supriya Mohile, Lazzaro Repetto, Barbara Van Leeuwen, Koen Milisen, Arti Hurria
雑誌名: J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2595-603. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8347.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer.
METHODS: SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment–related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care.
RESULTS: GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another.
CONCLUSION: There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.
PMID 25071125 J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2595-603. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8347.
|
