Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36638708›Full record

ArticleESMO open2023

Geriatric assessment and the variance of treatment recommendations in geriatric patients with gastrointestinal cancer-a study in AIO oncologists.

M Büttelmann, R D Hofheinz, A Kröcher, U Ubbelohde, S Stintzing, A Reinacher-Schick, M Bornhäuser, G Folprecht

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

M BüttelmannTU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany.
R D HofheinzUniversity Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
A KröcherTU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany.
U UbbelohdeTU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany.
S StintzingCharité - Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Cancer Immunology (CCM), Berlin, Germany.
A Reinacher-SchickRuhr University Bochum, St. Josef Hospital, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Bochum, Germany.
M BornhäuserTU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany.
G FolprechtTU Dresden / University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT/UCC), Medical Dept. I, Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: Gunnar.Folprecht@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHeidelberg University · DESt. Josef-Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to detect vulnerabilities for elderly cancer patients. To assess whether results of GA actually influence the treatment recommendations, we conducted a case vignette-based study in medical oncologists. MATERIALS AND

methodsSeventy oncologists gave their medical treatment recommendations for a maximum of 4 out of 10 gastrointestinal cancer patients in three steps: (i) based on tumor findings alone to simulate the guideline recommendation for a '50-year-old standard patient without comorbidities'; (ii) for the same situation in elderly patients (median age 77.5 years) according to the comorbidities, laboratory values and a short video simulating the clinical consultation; and (iii) after the results of a full GA including interpretation aid [Barthel Index, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), Geriatric 8 (G8), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Timed Get Up and Go (TGUG), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), stair climb test].

resultsData on 164 treatment recommendations were analyzed. The recommendations had a significantly higher variance for elderly patients than for 'standard' patients (944 versus 602, P < 0.0001) indicating a lower agreement between oncologists. Knowledge on GA had marginal influence on the treatment recommendation or its variance (944 versus 940, P = 0.92). There was no statistically significant influence of the working place or the years of experience in oncology on the variance of recommendations. The geriatric tools were rated approximately two times higher as being 'meaningful' (53%) and 'useful for the presented cases' (49%) than they were 'used in clinical practice' (19%). The most commonly used geriatric tool in patient care was the MNA (30%).

conclusionsThe higher variance of treatment recommendations indicates that it is less likely for elderly patients to get the optimal recommendation. Although the proposed therapeutic regimen varied higher in elderly patients and the oncologists rated the GA results as 'useful', the GA results did not influence the individual recommendations or its variance. Continuing education on GA and research on implementation into clinical practice are needed.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal NeoplasmsOncologistsAgedGeriatric AssessmentHumansMedical OncologyMiddle AgedQuality of Lifechemotherapygeriatric assessmentgeriatric oncologysurvey

Identifiers

PMID36638708
PMCPMC10024156
OpenAlexW4316174749

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read16
identifiers read2
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.