Dataset Information

Optimizing the G8 Screening Tool for Older Patients With Cancer: Diagnostic Performance and Validation of a Six-Item Version.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A multidimensional geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended in older cancer patients to inventory health problems and tailor treatment decisions accordingly but requires considerable time and human resources. The G8 is among the most sensitive screening tools for selecting patients warranting a full GA but has limited specificity. We sought to develop and validate an optimized version of the G8.

Patients and methods

We used a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years referred to geriatricians for GA (2007-2012: n = 729 [training set]; 2012-2014: n = 414 [validation set]). Abnormal GA was defined as at least one impaired domain across seven validated tests. Multiple correspondence analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and bootstrapped internal validation were performed sequentially.

Results

The final model included six independent predictors for abnormal GA: weight loss, cognition/mood, performance status, self-rated health status, polypharmacy (≥ 6 medications per day), and history of heart failure/coronary heart disease. For the original G8, sensitivity was 87.2% (95% confidence interval, 84.3-89.7), specificity 57.7% (47.3-67.7), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 86.5% (83.5-89.6). The modified G8 had corresponding values of 89.2% (86.5-91.5), 79.0% (69.4-86.6), and 91.6% (89.3; 93.9), with higher AUROC values for all tumor sites and stable properties on the validation set.

Conclusion

A modified G8 screening tool exhibited better diagnostic performance with greater uniformity across cancer sites and required only six items. If these features are confirmed in other settings, the modified tool may facilitate selection for a full GA in older patients with cancer.

Implications for practice

Several screening tools have been developed to identify older patients with cancer likely to benefit from a complete geriatric assessment, but none combines appropriate sensitivity and specificity. Based on a large prospective cohort study, an optimized G8 tool was developed, combining a systematic statistical approach with expert judgment to ensure optimal discriminative power and clinical relevance. The improved screening tool achieves high sensitivity, high specificity, better homogeneity across cancer types, and greater parsimony with only six items needed, facilitating selection for a full geriatric assessment.

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Tapia C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4746091 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives:Brief cognitive tests are recommended in clinical services outside of specialized memory clinics as case-finding tools to reduce the diagnostic gap of dementia. Although the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is among the most widely used brief tests in specialized memory clinics, its length precludes routine use in nonspecialty clinics. This study investigated whether a small subset of MoCA would suffice to match the performance of the full MoCA in detecting dementia and, hence, be useful in nonspecialty clinics.Design:Cross-sectional test research.Setting:Alzheimer's Disease Centers across the United States.Participants:Participants age ?65 years (n = 8773).Measures:Participants completed MoCA and were evaluated for dementia. The study sample was split into 2: the derivation sample (n = 4386) was used to develop a short variant of MoCA that best distinguish dementia (using the best-subset-approach with 10-fold cross-validation), while the validation sample (n = 4387) verified its actual performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic-curve (AUC).Results:A 4-item cognitive test was identified, comprising Clock-drawing, Tap-at-letter-A, Orientation, and Delayed-recall. It demonstrated excellent performance in distinguishing dementia from nondementia (AUC 94.2%) and was comparable to that of MoCA (AUC 93.8%), even across education subgroups. It explained 85.9% of the variability in MoCA and had scores that could be mapped to MoCA with reasonable precision. At the optimal cut-off score of <10, it demonstrated 87.9% sensitivity and 87.6% specificity in detecting dementia.Conclusions and implications:Using rigorous methods, this study developed a brief cognitive test that is free of charge, takes <5 minutes to complete, covers the key cognitive domains, and has standardized instructions to allow its administration even by nonphysicians. This brief test is well suited as a case-finding tool in nonspecialty clinics (such as in primary care and geriatric clinics) and may improve care-integration with specialized memory clinics that utilize MoCA.

Project description:BackgroundIn older patients with cancer, depression is difficult to assess because of its heterogeneous clinical expression. The 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-4) is quick and easy to administer but has not been validated in this population. The present study was designed to test the diagnostic performance of the GDS-4 in a French cohort of older patients with cancer before treatment.Materials and methodsOur cross-sectional analysis of data from the Elderly Cancer Patient cohort covered all patients with cancer aged ≥70 years and referred for geriatric assessment at two centers in France between 2007 and 2018. The GDS-4's psychometric properties were evaluated against three different measures of depression: the geriatrician's clinical diagnosis (based on a semistructured interview), the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and a cluster analysis. The scale's sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated.ResultsIn a sample of 2,293 patients (median age, 81 years; women, 46%), the GDS-4's sensitivity and specificity for detecting physician-diagnosed depression were, respectively, 90% and 89%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 8.2 and 0.11, and the AUROC was 92%. When considering the subset of patients with data on all measures of depression, the sensitivity and specificity values were, respectively, ≥90% and ≥72%, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were, respectively, ≥3.4 and ≤ 0.11, and the AUROC was ≥91%.ConclusionThe GDS-4 appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer.Implications for practiceConsidering the overlap between symptoms of cancer and symptoms of depression, depression is particularly difficult to assess in older geriatric oncology and is associated with poor outcomes; there is a need for a routine psychological screening. Self-report instruments like the 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer. Asking four questions might enable physicians to screen older patients with cancer for depression and then guide them toward further clinical evaluation and appropriate care if required.