Kenig, Jakub

Nowotwory Journal of Oncology

English

Jagiellonian Univeristy Repository

184Review articleNOWOTWORY Journal of Oncology 2020, volume 70, number 5, 184–186DOI: 10.5603/NJO.a2020.0039© Polskie Towarzystwo OnkologiczneISSN 0029–540Xwww.nowotwory.edu.plOncogeriatrics (part 8.) Frailty screening tools Jakub KenigDepartment of General, Oncologic and Geriatric Surgery, III Chair of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland Various frailty screening tools have been developed. However, there is currently no single ideal model; some scores are better for population-level, whereas others are best suited for clinical screening and preoperative assessment. Therefore, the choice of the score might relay on specific clinical condition, the aim of the tool and department resources. The G8 and the aCGA seem to be the the most suitable in the case of preoperative frailty assessments of older patients with solid abdominal cancer who are undergoing high-risk surgery. They also may be used to identify patients at risk for adverse postoperative outcomes. They may support the decision process particularly in situations of lack of experience in full Geriatric Assessment (easy to master and implement), in acute admitted patients (time pressure or some of the domains cannot be assessed) and in case of low-/moderate-risk surgery (where extensive frailty evaluation may not influence the postoperative outcome). Key words: older cancer patients, frailty screening, G8, aCGA, VES-13, TRST, Fried, GFI, Rockwood, BalducciHow to cite:Kenig J. Oncogeriatrics (part 8.). Frailty screening tools. NOWOTWORY J Oncol 2020; 70: 184–186.As was mentioned in the previous paper, the routine format of current preoperative requirements do not provide the in-formation needed for optimal, tailored treatment of older patients with cancer. Therefore, Geriatric Assessment (GA) was introduced which allows for an initial assessment of the patient’s condition, the identification of previously unknown health problems, a diagnosis of frailty, and an assessment of the likelihood of complications [1]. However, GA requires experien-ce, it is time-consuming (although the additional 40 minutes during the preoperative assessment seems to be a small price to pay to decrease perioperative morbidity) and not necessary in all patients [2, 3]. Therefore, various screening tools for frailty have been developed. The Vulnerable Elderly Survey (VES-13) [4], Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST) [5], Geriatric 8 (G8) [6], Groningen Frailty Index (GFI) [7], abbreviated Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (aCGA) [8], Rockwood [9], Balducci [10], and Fried [11] screening scores are commonly used. Table I presents the glossary of the above-mentioned tests, including the number of questions, rang and literature cut-off scores for a patient to be considered frail.In 2015, an update on the International Society of Geria-tric Oncology (SIOG) recommendations on the use of frailty screening tools was published [12]. In the review, the most common studied tools in older patients with cancer were the VES-13, the TRST and the G8. The highest results were obse-rved for: G8 (median sensitivity and specificity was 77–92% and 39–75%, respectively), Balducci (94% and 50%) and TRST (91% and 47%). In our recently published paper, the G8 had the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value in frailty screening among patients with cancer undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery. In turn, the aCGA had the highest discrimi-natory ability in terms of frailty screening in this population [13]. Most of the mentioned screening tests (VES-13, TRST, GFI, Rockwood, Balducci, Fried criteria) were developed based on older general populations. Only the G8 and the aCGA were designed specifically for older oncology patients [4–11]. One of the most 185important characteristics of a screening tool is its ability to exclude the possibility of vulnerability, which is equivalent to a negative predictive value. Most of the papers regarding this topic present the G8 as a score meeting these conditions. In turn, its low specifi-city may result from the fact that it was not designed to specifically detect an abnormal GA. Thus, the aCGA, which does derive from the GA, may achieve the highest overall accuracy. The VES-13 and Fried criteria assess mainly functional status and do not identify impairments in other geriatric domains such as nutritional status, mood, or cognitive level. The TRST was designed for the screening of frailty in the emergency department but various authors have used it also in other settings [5]. To conclude, there is currently no single perfect frailty-scre-ening tool; some scores are better for population-level, where-as others are best suited for clinical screening and preoperative assessment. Therefore, the choice of the score might relay on specific clinical conditions, the aim of the tool and department resources [14]. In the case of preoperative assessment of older patients with solid abdominal cancer, the G8 and the aCGA seems the most suitable [13].The screening tests were not originally designed to predict the postoperative course, however, they are being increasin-gly studied as outcome predictors. Biganzoli et al.  assessed patients with early-stage solid cancers using the Balducci, the Fried and the VES-13 score. The VES-13 score of ≥7 was a va-luable discriminating tool for predicting functional decline or death. However, the authors used a higher cut-off level (≥7) in comparison to most publications (≥3) [15]. Bongue et al. evaluated the predictive performance of four frailty screening methods (aCGA, GFI, VES-13 and Fried score) and their AUC in predicting mortality ranged from 0.63 to 0.75. The tool with the greatest sensitivity for predicting the occurrence of disability, mortality and institutionalisation was the VES-13 [16]. In turn, Hall D et al. showed the clinical usefulness of the screening tool implemented in the preoperative decision process of 9153 patients undergoing various surgical procedures. On that basis, physicians decided to perform detailed evaluations of the pa-tients and to modify their perioperative plans accordingly. As a result the mortality rate decreased significantly 30, 180 and 365 days after the surgery [17]. In turn, Huisman M.G. et al. analysing patients undergoing surgery for various solid tumours did not observe any significant predictive ability of the VES-13 and the GFI for the 30-day postoperative outcome [18].Concluding, frailty-screening tools can be very beneficial in a variety of surgical fields. They can identify patients at risk of frailty and for adverse outcomes, particularly in situations of lack of experience in full GA (they are easy to master and implement), in acute admitted patients (when there is not enough time or some of the domains cannot be assessed) and in cases of low-/moderate-risk surgery (where extensive frailty evaluation may not influence the postoperative outco-me). However, only a full Geriatric Assessment allows for: an appropriate preoperative evaluation (currently also the refe-rence method for frailty diagnosis), identifying the age-related areas of vulnerability that can be missed in a routine clinical evaluation and enabling their preoperative modification. It also thoroughly supports the process of shared preoperative decision-making. In this age group the treatment goal is not only extension of life, but more importantly, a return to the pre-operative functional and intellectual level in the postoperative period. Arguments raised about the time-consuming nature of this process are absurd, particularly when one considers the time and resources required to treat complications. Therefore, the use of the GA prior to high-risk surgery for all older patients with cancer should be recommended. Conflict of interest: none declaredJakub Kenig Jagiellonian University Medical College Department of General, Oncologic and Geriatric Surgery III Chair of General Surgeryul. Prądnicka 35–37.31-202 Kraków, Polande-mail: jkenig@cm-uj.krakow.plTable I. Glossary of the different screening tests used in the studyTest Developed for Number of items range Cut-off score*VES-13 [4] general older population 13 0–15 ≥3TRST [5] older patients at ED 6 0–6 ≥1G8 [6] oncology patients 8 0–17 ≤14GFI [7] general older population 15 0–15 ≥4aCGA [8] oncology patients15 ADL: 3IADL: 4GDS: 4MMS: 4≥1 dependent≥1 dependent≥2≤6Rockwood [9] general older population 4 0–3 ≥2Balducci [10] general older population 4 0–4 1Fried score [11] general older population 5 0–5 ≥3VES-13 – Vulnerable Elders Survey, TRST – Triage Risk Screening Tool, G8 – Geriatric 8, GFI – Groningen Frailty Index, aCGA – abbreviated Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment,  ED – Emergency Department, *Cut-off score for a patient to be considered frail186Received: 13 Aug 2020 Accepted: 13 Aug 2020References1. Kenig J, Szabat K. Oncogeriatric (part 7). Geriatric Assessment for older patients with cancer. NOWOTWORY J Oncol. 2020; 70: 85–91.2. Bolle S, Smets EMA, Hamaker ME, et al. Medical decision making for older patients during multidisciplinary oncology team meetings. J Ge-riatr Oncol. 2019; 10(1): 74–83, doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2018.07.016, indexed in Pubmed: 30213454.3. Eamer G, Taheri A, Chen SS, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older people admitted to a surgical service. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 1: CD012485, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012485.pub2, indexed in Pubmed: 29385235.4. Saliba S, Elliott M, Rubenstein LA, et al. The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13): A Tool for Identifying Vulnerable Elders in the Community. JAGS. 2001; 49: 1691–1699.5. Meldon SW, Mion LC, Palmer RM, et al. A brief risk-stratification tool to predict repeat emergency department visits and hospitalizations in older patients discharged from the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10(3): 224–232, doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb01996.x, indexed in Pubmed: 12615588.6. Soubeyran P, Bellera CA, Gregoire F, et al. Validation of a screening tool in geriatric oncology: the Oncodage project. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: abstr.7. Slaets JPJ. Vulnerability in the elderly: frailty. Med Clin North Am. 2006; 90(4): 593–601, doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2006.05.008, indexed in Pubmed: 16843764.8. Overcash JA, Beckstead J, Moody L, et al. The abbreviated comprehen-sive geriatric assessment (aCGA) for use in the older cancer patient as a prescreen: scoring and interpretation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2006; 59(3): 205–210, doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2006.04.003, indexed in Pubmed: 16904902.9. Rockwood K, Stadnyk K, MacKnight C, et al. A brief clinical instrument to classify frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 1999; 353(9148): 205–206, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)04402-X, indexed in Pubmed: 9923878.10. Balducci L, Beghe C. The application of the principles of geriatrics to the management of the older person with cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2000; 35(3): 147–154, doi: 10.1016/s1040-8428(00)00089-5, indexed in Pubmed: 10960797.11. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001; 56(3): M146–M156, doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146, indexed in Pubmed: 11253156.12. Decoster L, Van Puyvelde K, Mohile S, et al. Screening tools for mul-tidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendations†. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26(2): 288–300, doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu210, indexed in Pubmed: 24936581.13. Kenig J, Szabat K, Mituś J, et al. Usefulness of eight screening tools for predicting frailty and postoperative short- and long-term outco-mes among older patients with cancer who qualify for abdominal surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020 [Epub ahead of print], doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.07.040, indexed in Pubmed: 32800399.14. Dent E, Kowal P, Hoogendijk EO. Frailty measurement in research and clinical practice: A review. Eur J Intern Med. 2016; 31: 3–10, doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.03.007, indexed in Pubmed: 27039014.15. Biganzoli L, Mislang AR, Di Donato S, et al. Screening for Frailty in Older Patients With Early-Stage Solid Tumors: A Prospective Longitudinal Evaluation of Three Different Geriatric Tools. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017; 72(7): 922–928, doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw234, indexed in Pubmed: 28158486.16. Bongue B, Buisson A, Dupre C, et al. Predictive performance of four frailty screening tools in community-dwelling elderly. BMC Geriatr. 2017; 17(1): 262, doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0633-y, indexed in Pubmed: 29126383.17. Hall DE, Arya S, Schmid KK, et al. Association of a Frailty Screening Initiative With Postoperative Survival at 30, 180, and 365 Days. JAMA Surg. 2017; 152(3): 233–240, doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4219, indexed in Pubmed: 27902826.18. Huisman MG, Audisio RA, Ugolini G, et al. Screening for predictors of adverse outcome in onco-geriatric surgical patients: A multicenter prospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41(7): 844–851, doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.02.018, indexed in Pubmed: 25935371.

Oncogeriatrics (part 8.) : frailty screening tools

https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/item/264448/kenig_oncogeriatrics_part_8_frailty_screening_tools_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Oncogeriatrics (part 8.) : frailty screening tools

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Jagiellonian Univeristy Repository