Cited by 623Frailty in Older AdultsNutrition and Health in AgingCancer survivorship and care

Developing a cancer‐specific geriatric assessment: A feasibility study

Open access
Hurria, Arti, Gupta, Supriya, Zauderer, Marjorie, Zuckerman, Enid L., Cohen, Harvey J., Muss, Hyman, Rodin, Miriam, Panageas, Katherine S. +8 more·2005·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As the U.S. population ages, there is an emerging need to characterize the “functional age” of older patients with cancer to tailor treatment decisions and stratify outcomes based on factors other than chronologic age. The goals of the current study were to develop a brief, but comprehensive, primarily self‐administered cancer‐specific geriatric assessment measure and to determine its feasibility as measured by 1) the percentage of patients able to complete the measure on their own, 2) the length of time to complete, and 3) patient satisfaction with the measure. METHODS: The geriatric and oncology literature was reviewed to choose validated measures of geriatric assessment across the following domains: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, psychological status, social functioning and support, and nutritional status. Criteria applied to geriatric assessment measurements included reliability, validity, brevity, and ability to self‐administer. The measure was administered to patients with breast carcinoma, lung carcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, or lymphoma who were fluent in English and receiving chemotherapy at Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY) or the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL). RESULTS: The instrument was completed by 43 patients (mean age, 74 yrs; range, 65–87 yrs). The majority had AJCC Stage IV disease (68%). The mean time to completion of the assessment was 27 minutes (range, 8–45 mins). Most patients were able to complete the self‐administered portion of the assessment without assistance (78%) and were satisfied with the questionnaire length (90%). There was no association noted between age (P = 0.56) or educational level (P = 0.99) and the ability to complete the assessment without assistance. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, this brief but comprehensive geriatric assessment could be completed by the majority of patients without assistance. Prospective trials of its generalizability, reliability, and validity are justified. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.21422

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Loprinzi CL, Laurie JA, Wieand S, et al. Prospective evalua- tion of prognostic variables from patient-completed ques- tionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:601-607.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hurria, A., Gupta, S., Zauderer, M., Zuckerman, E. L., Cohen, H. J., Muss, H., Rodin, M., Panageas, K. S., Holland, J. C., Saltz, L., Kris, M. G., Noy, A., Gomez, J., Jakubowski, A., Hudis, C., & Kornblith, A. B.
Affiliations
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Hurria, Arti
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-10-04
Volume
104
Issue
9
Pages
1998-2005
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W1519189106
Cited by
623
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 28
FWCI
7.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Federation for Aging Research
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
geriatric assessment, elderly cancer patients, functional status, comorbidities, cognitive status, social functioning, nutritional status, self-administered questionnaire, feasibility, patient satisfaction, chemotherapy, functional age, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, lymphoma
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Depression, Educational Status, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Manifest Anxiety Scale, Neoplasms, Psychometrics, Self-Assessment, Social Support, Geriatric Assessment, Patient Satisfaction, Marital Status, Karnofsky Performance Status

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review