Predictive ability of the G8 screening test to determine probable sarcopenia and abnormal comprehensive geriatric assessment in older patients with solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Pre-treatment evaluation for sarcopenia is recommended in cancer patients. New screening tests that are less time-consuming and can identify patients who will potentially benefit from geriatric assessment are being developed; the G8 geriatric screening test is one such example. We aimed to investigate whether the G8 screening test can detect probable sarcopenia and is valid and reliable compared to a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in Turkish older adults with solid cancers. METHODS: We included solid cancer patients referred to a single center. Probable sarcopenia and abnormal CGA were defined as low handgrip strength. Cut-offs for handgrip strength in the Turkish population have been previously determined to be 32 kg for males and 22 kg for females and impairment in at least one of the CGA tests, respectively. The CGA tests comprised KATZ Basic Activities of Daily Living Scale Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, Mini-Mental-State Examination Scale, Geriatric Depression Scale-15, and Mini-Nutritional Assessment Short Form. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses evaluated the test's predictive ability. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities were assessed. RESULTS: The median age of the 76 patients included was 72 (65-91) years. There was a moderate correlation between handgrip strength and the G8 test total score. The sensitivity and specificity of the G8 test to detect probable sarcopenia alone (cut off score = 12.5) were 50 and 92%, respectively (AUC: 0.747; p < 0.001); to determine abnormal CGA plus probable sarcopenia (cut off score = 13) were 93.33 and 86.89%, respectively (AUC: 0.939; p < 0.001); and to detect abnormal CGA alone (cut off score = 14) were 79.63 and 95.45%, respectively (AUC: 0.893; p < 0.001). The G8 test results agreed with those of CGA (κ = 0.638; p < 0.001). Both inter- and intra-rater assessments of G8 scores revealed a strong agreement (Interclass correlation coefficient = 0.979, p < 0.001 and ρ = 0.994, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Turkish version of the G8 test is a good screening tool to detect probable sarcopenia alone and in conjunction with abnormal CGA in older patients with solid malignancies. The G8 screening tool may thus be useful in detecting probable sarcopenia in Turkish older adults with solid cancers.

Comparative Evaluation of Predictive Ability of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Components Including Frailty on Long-Term Mortality.

Background: This study aims to compare the predictive value of all comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) parameters with the predictive value of frailty assessment (with Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) and Fried Frailty Index (FFI)) for long-term mortality, in older adults.Methods: A total of 967 patients were included, consecutively. At the first admission, age, gender, comorbidities, number of drugs, and laboratory values of the patients were recorded. Each patient underwent CGA which consisted of anthropometric measurements, functional, cognitive, mood, nutritional, gait, fall, sleep duration, and frailty assessment. Fifty-seven months after the first admission, CGA parameters were analyzed to determine their predictive abilities on long-term mortality due to all causes, comparatively.Results: The median age was 73 years (range 65-94 years). The median follow-up time was 39.9 months (range 0.5-57.3 months). Serum albumin level, FFI, EFS, instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) score, and walking time were the best predictors of mortality. There was no significant difference between these parameters in predicting mortality.Conclusion: FFI and EFS have similar predictive value for mortality. In busy clinical practice, a new index based on IADL, walking time, and serum albumin level may be an alternative of frailty assessment for predicting mortality.

Does Preoperative Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and Frailty Predict Postoperative Complications?

BACKGROUND: The influence of preoperative comprehensive geriatric assessment and frailty on postoperative morbidity, mortality, delirium were examined. METHODS: A total of 108 patients were evaluated. The Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the Lawton Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (IADL), the Mini-Nutrition Assessment test (MNA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Yesavage Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were performed. Fried Criteria were used to assess physical frailty. We used the Physiological and Operative Severity Scores for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity score (POSSUM), the American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (ASA), and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to determine the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Assessment Test for Delirium (4AT) was applied for detection of delirium. RESULTS: The median age was 71 years (min-max: 65-84). IADL (p = 0.032), MNA (p = 0.01), MMSE scores (p = 0.026) were found to be significantly lower in patients with morbidity. POSSUM physiology score (p = 0.005), operative score (p = 0.015) and CCI (p = 0.029) were significantly higher in the patients with morbidity. Patients developed morbidity were found to be more frail (p < 0.001). The patients with delirium were found to have lower IADL (p = 0.049) and MMSE scores (p = 0.004), higher POSSUM physiology score (p = 0.005) and all of them were frail. It was found that frailty (OR = 23.695 95% CI: 6.912-81.231 p < 0.001), POSSUM operative score (OR:1.118 95% CI: 1.021-1.224 p = 0.016) and preoperative systolic blood pressure (OR:0.937%95 CI: 0.879-0.999 p = 0.048) were independently related factors for postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: In our study, CGA and frailty in preoperative period were found to be indicators for postoperative morbidity and delirium.