Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment interventions on tolerance to chemotherapy in older people

Open access
Kalsi, T, Babic-Illman, G, Ross, P J, Maisey, N R, Hughes, S, Fields, P, Martin, F C, Wang, Y, Harari, D·2015·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although comorbidities are identified in routine oncology practice, intervention plans for the coexisting needs of older people receiving chemotherapy are rarely made. This study evaluates the impact of geriatrician-delivered comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) interventions on chemotherapy toxicity and tolerance for older people with cancer. METHODS: Comparative study of two cohorts of older patients (aged 70+ years) undergoing chemotherapy in a London Hospital. The observational control group (N=70, October 2010-July 2012) received standard oncology care. The intervention group (N=65, September 2011-February 2013) underwent risk stratification using a patient-completed screening questionnaire and high-risk patients received CGA. Impact of CGA interventions on chemotherapy tolerance outcomes and grade 3+ toxicity rate were evaluated. Outcomes were adjusted for age, comorbidity, metastatic disease and initial dose reductions. RESULTS: Intervention participants undergoing CGA received mean of 6.2±2.6 (range 0-15) CGA intervention plans each. They were more likely to complete cancer treatment as planned (odds ratio (OR) 4.14 (95% CI: 1.50-11.42), P=0.006) and fewer required treatment modifications (OR 0.34 (95% CI: 0.16-0.73), P=0.006). Overall grade 3+ toxicity rate was 43.8% in the intervention group and 52.9% in the control (P=0.292). CONCLUSIONS: Geriatrician-led CGA interventions were associated with improved chemotherapy tolerance. Standard oncology care should shift towards modifying coexisting conditions to optimise chemotherapy outcomes for older people.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/bjc.2015.120

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Kalsi, T., Babic-Illman, G., Ross, P. J., Maisey, N. R., Hughes, S., Fields, P., Martin, F. C., Wang, Y., & Harari, D.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2015-04
Volume
112
Issue
9
Pages
1435-1444
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2047503765
Cited by
265
References
6
FWCI
11.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment interventions on tolerance to chemotherapy in older people. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.2015.120
The paper
Kalsi, T., Babic-Illman, G., Ross, P. J., Maisey, N. R., Hughes, S., Fields, P., Martin, F. C., Wang, Y., & Harari, D. (2015). The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment interventions on tolerance to chemotherapy in older people. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.120

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.