Cited by 794Frailty in Older AdultsNutrition and Health in AgingPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendations

Open access
Decoster, L., Van Puyvelde, K., Mohile, S., Wedding, U., Basso, U., Colloca, G., Rostoft, S., Overcash, J. +10 more·2015·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

Background Screening tools are proposed to identify those older cancer patients in need of geriatric assessment (GA) and multidisciplinary approach. We aimed to update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on the use of screening tools.Materials and methods SIOG composed a task group to review, interpret and discuss evidence on the use of screening tools in older cancer patients. A systematic review was carried out and discussed by an expert panel, leading to a consensus statement on their use.Results Forty-four studies reporting on the use of 17 different screening tools in older cancer patients were identified. The tools most studied in older cancer patients are G8, Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST) and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13). Across all studies, the highest sensitivity was observed for: G8, fTRST, Oncogeriatric screen, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status, Senior Adult Oncology Program (SAOP) 2 screening and Gerhematolim. In 11 direct comparisons for detecting problems on a full GA, the G8 was more or equally sensitive than other instruments in all six comparisons, whereas results were mixed for the VES-13 in seven comparisons. In addition, different tools have demonstrated associations with outcome measures, including G8 and VES-13.Conclusions Screening tools do not replace GA but are recommended in a busy practice in order to identify those patients in need of full GA. If abnormal, screening should be followed by GA and guided multidisciplinary interventions. Several tools are available with different performance for various parameters (including sensitivity for addressing the need for further GA). Further research should focus on the ability of screening tools to build clinical pathways and to predict different outcome parameters.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/annonc/mdu210

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Decoster, L., Van Puyvelde, K., Mohile, S., Wedding, U., Basso, U., Colloca, G., Rostoft, S., Overcash, J., Wildiers, H., Steer, C., Kimmick, G., Kanesvaran, R., Luciani, A., Terret, C., Hurria, A., Kenis, C., Audisio, R., & Extermann, M.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • Jena University Hospital (DE)
  • Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IT)
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • Duke University (US)
  • National Cancer Centre Singapore (SG)
  • Ospedale San Paolo (IT)
  • Centre Léon Bérard (FR)
  • City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Decoster, L.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
288-300
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126838184
Cited by
794
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 5
FWCI
27.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
geriatric assessment, elderly cancer patients, screening tool, G8, VES-13, frailty screening, sensitivity, performance status, frailty assessment
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Geriatrics, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Geriatric Assessment

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