Cited by 168Frailty in Older AdultsNutrition and Health in AgingPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Frailty index developed from a cancer-specific geriatric assessment and the association with mortality among older adults with cancer

Open access
Guerard, Emily J., Deal, Allison M., Chang, YunKyung, Williams, Grant R., Nyrop, Kirsten A., Pergolotti, Mackenzi, Muss, Hyman B., Sanoff, Hanna K. +1 more·2017·Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Abstract

Background: An objective measure is needed to identify frail older adults with cancer who are at increased risk for poor health outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to develop a frailty index from a cancer-specific geriatric assessment (GA) and evaluate its ability to predict all-cause mortality among older adults with cancer. Patients and Methods: Using a unique and novel data set that brings together GA data with cancer-specific and long-term mortality data, we developed the Carolina Frailty Index (CFI) from a cancer-specific GA based on the principles of deficit accumulation. CFI scores (range, 0–1) were categorized as robust (0–0.2), pre-frail (0.2–0.35), and frail (>0.35). The primary outcome for evaluating predictive validity was all-cause mortality. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to compare survival between frailty groups, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate associations. Results: In our sample of 546 older adults with cancer, the median age was 72 years, 72% were women, 85% were white, and 47% had a breast cancer diagnosis. Overall, 58% of patients were robust, 24% were pre-frail, and 18% were frail. The estimated 5-year survival rate was 72% in robust patients, 58% in pre-frail patients, and 34% in frail patients (log-rank test, P<.0001). Frail patients had more than a 2-fold increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with robust patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.51–3.68). Conclusions: The CFI was predictive of all-cause mortality in older adults with cancer, a finding that was independent of age, sex, cancer type and stage, and number of medical comorbidities. The CFI has the potential to become a tool that oncologists can use to objectively identify frailty in older adults with cancer.

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 · 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0122

Cites

35 of 35 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: 4

  1. Walter LC, Covinsky KE. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. JAMA 2001;285:2750-2756.
  2. Hurria A, Gupta S, Zauderer M, et al. Developing a cancer-specific geriatric assessment: a feasibility study. Cancer 2005;104:1998-2005.
  3. Extermann M, Aapro M, Bernabei R, et al. Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: recommendations from the task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2005;55:241-252.
  4. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:142-148.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guerard, E. J., Deal, A. M., Chang, Y., Williams, G. R., Nyrop, K. A., Pergolotti, M., Muss, H. B., Sanoff, H. K., & Lund, J. L.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Published
2017-07
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
894-902
ISSN
  • 1540-1405 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-1413
OpenAlex
W2725246371
Cited by
168
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5
FWCI
7.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (5k12ca120780-08)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • National Cancer Institute (5K12CA120780, R25CA116339)
  • Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
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
frailty index, frailty, elderly cancer patients, all-cause mortality, deficit accumulation, pre-frailty, mortality prediction, breast cancer, long-term survival
MeSH terms
Frailty, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Mortality, Neoplasms, North Carolina, Registries, Geriatric Assessment, Comorbidity, Frail Elderly

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