Cited by 875Frailty in Older AdultsNutrition and Health in AgingPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients with cancer

Extermann, Martine, Hurria, Arti·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: During the last decade, oncologists and geriatricians have begun to work together to integrate the principles of geriatrics into oncology care. The increasing use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is one example of this effort. A CGA includes an evaluation of an older individual's functional status, comorbid medical conditions, cognition, nutritional status, psychological state, and social support; and a review of the patient's medications. This article discusses recent advances on the use of a CGA in older patients with cancer. METHODS: In this article, we provide an update on the studies that address the domains of a geriatric assessment applied to the oncology patient, review the results of the first studies evaluating the use of a CGA in developing interventions to improve the care of older adults with cancer, and discuss future research directions. RESULTS: The evidence from recent studies demonstrates that a CGA can predict morbidity and mortality in older patients with cancer. Accumulating data show the benefits of incorporating a CGA in the evaluation of older patients with cancer. Prospective trials evaluating the utility of a CGA to guide interventions to improve the quality of cancer care in older adults are justified. CONCLUSION: Growing evidence demonstrates that the variables examined in a CGA can predict morbidity and mortality in older patients with cancer, and uncover problems relevant to cancer care that would otherwise go unrecognized.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2007.10.6559

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Extermann, M., & Hurria, A.
Affiliations
City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-05-10
Volume
25
Issue
14
Pages
1824-1831
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2093679650
Cited by
875
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 68
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (K23AG026749)
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
comprehensive geriatric assessment, elderly cancer patients, functional status, comorbidities, cognitive function, nutritional status, psychological state, social support, medication review, quality of cancer care, geriatric oncology
MeSH terms
Aged, Cognition, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Nutritional Status, Social Support, Geriatric Assessment, Comorbidity, Polypharmacy, Disease Management

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