Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40542587›Full record

SynthesisThe oncologist2025

The prognostic role of Geriatric 8 in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Runzhi Chen, Dongmei Yang, Mengxing Tian, Huiting Xu, Xin Jin

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Personalizing cancer care for older adults.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Prognostic value of nutritional and functional screening instruments for mortality in patients with hematologic malignancies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Runzhi ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 43000, China.
Dongmei YangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 43000, China.
Mengxing TianDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 43000, China.
Huiting XuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 43000, China.
Xin JinDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 43000, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3811-5762

Funding

CIFST - Abbott Foundation of Food Nutrition and Safety 202305National Science Foundation of Hubei Province 2021CFB267National Science Foundation of Hubei Province 2024AFB1030Talent Project of Hubei Cancer Hospital 2025HBCHQHRC009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePrevious studies have reported conflicting results regarding the association between the Geriatric 8 (G-8) geriatric screening tool and prognosis in patients with cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the G-8 score in patients with cancer.

methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Medline databases were searched to identify trials exploring the association between G-8 score and prognosis in patients with cancer. Meta-analyses of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the high and low G-8 scores were performed. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool.

resultsA total of 42 studies involving 9053 patients with cancer were included. The prevalence of frailty, evaluated using the G-8 tool across trials, ranged from 27% to 91%. A low G-8 score was associated with poor OS (Hazard ratio [HR] 2.11; 95% CI:1.93-2.31, P <.001) and PFS (HR 1.78, 95% CI,1.55-2.05, P <.001) in patients with cancer. Overall survival were shorter in patients with low G-8 scores than in those with high G-8 scores in digestive system tumors, head and neck cancer, lung cancer, gynecologic tumors, hematologic malignancies, and prostate cancer. The predictive role of the G-8 tool was also confirmed in subgroups with G-8 cutoff values of 9-14. Patients with low G-8 scores had more advanced disease stages and higher ECOG performance status scores.

conclusionsThe prevalence of frailty was high among patients with cancer according to the G-8 geriatric screening tool. Decreased G-8 scores are significantly associated with poor survival in patients with cancer. G-8 is a promising tool for frailty screening.

Indexed as

FrailtyGeriatric AssessmentNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMalePrognosiscancerfrailtyGeriatric 8meta-analysisoverall survival

Identifiers

PMID40542587
PMCPMC12204759

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.