Observational studyJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2025
Impact of preoperative geriatric screening and comorbidity assessment in patients with vulvar and vaginal cancer.
Observational study in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with vulvar (VC) and vaginal (VaC) cancer are often frail and should be prescreened before a time-consuming comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). This study assessed the impact of the preoperatively determined frailty status with the G8 geriatric screening tool (G8) and comorbidity assessment on the outcome of patients with VC/VaC.
methodsWe conducted an observational study with prospective data collection of patients aged ≥ 60 undergoing surgery for VC and VAC from 05/2020 to 01/2025. Patients were assessed with the G8 tool, age-adjusted Charlson-Comorbidity Index and the Lee-index. Positive G8 results led to CGA-based testing and, if indicated, geriatric consultation. Cox regression, Kaplan–Meier curves and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to analyze the predictive validity of the G8.
results41 patients were screened. 26 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 23 months. 10 patients were considered G8 positive (G8 ≤ 14 points). Median age was 74.5 (interquartile range: 66–81.3) years. The G8 positive cohort was older, had more comorbidities and had higher ECOG and ASA performance status than the G8 negative cohort. 20% of the G8 positive patients did not receive standard surgical therapy and only one in five patients underwent standard adjuvant radio-/chemotherapy. The univariate Cox-model for overall survival (OS) for G8 positivity had a hazard ratio of 5.65 with 95% CI [1.14–28.1] and a significantly lower 2-year OS (40.0 vs. 85.1%), supported by PSM adjusted for residual confounding (p = 0.017).
conclusionsThe G8 can be easily implemented in the clinical routine to identify VC and VaC patients with a reduced 2-year OS who may benefit from CGA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.