IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0115060.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Screening for Vulnerability in Older Cancer Patients: The ONCODAGE Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Soubeyran
  • Carine Bellera
  • Jean Goyard
  • Damien Heitz
  • Hervé Curé
  • Hubert Rousselot
  • Gilles Albrand
  • Véronique Servent
  • Olivier Saint Jean
  • Isabelle van Praagh
  • Jean-Emmanuel Kurtz
  • Stéphane Périn
  • Jean-Luc Verhaeghe
  • Catherine Terret
  • Christophe Desauw
  • Véronique Girre
  • Cécile Mertens
  • Simone Mathoulin-Pélissier
  • Muriel Rainfray

Abstract

Background: Geriatric Assessment is an appropriate method for identifying older cancer patients at risk of life-threatening events during therapy. Yet, it is underused in practice, mainly because it is time- and resource-consuming. This study aims to identify the best screening tool to identify older cancer patients requiring geriatric assessment by comparing the performance of two short assessment tools the G8 and the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13). Patients and Methods: The diagnostic accuracy of the G8 and the (VES-13) were evaluated in a prospective cohort study of 1674 cancer patients accrued before treatment in 23 health care facilities. 1435 were eligible and evaluable. Outcome measures were multidimensional geriatric assessment (MGA), sensitivity (primary), specificity, negative and positive predictive values and likelihood ratios of the G8 and VES-13, and predictive factors of 1-year survival rate. Results: Patient median age was 78.2 years (70-98) with a majority of females (69.8%), various types of cancer including 53.9% breast, and 75.8% Performance Status 0-1. Impaired MGA, G8, and VES-13 were 80.2%, 68.4%, and 60.2%, respectively. Mean time to complete G8 or VES-13 was about five minutes. Reproducibility of the two questionnaires was good. G8 appeared more sensitive (76.5% versus 68.7%, P = 0.0046) whereas VES-13 was more specific (74.3% versus 64.4%, P

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Soubeyran & Carine Bellera & Jean Goyard & Damien Heitz & Hervé Curé & Hubert Rousselot & Gilles Albrand & Véronique Servent & Olivier Saint Jean & Isabelle van Praagh & Jean-Emmanuel Kurtz & S, 2014. "Screening for Vulnerability in Older Cancer Patients: The ONCODAGE Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0115060
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115060
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115060&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0115060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0115060. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.