Evaluation of the cardiovascular health study (CHS) instrument and the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) in elderly cancer patients. Are we still missing the right screening tool?

BACKGROUND

A geriatric screening tool would be valuable to identify elderly cancer patients who might benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). This study evaluated the accuracy of the cardiovascular health study (CHS) instrument in predicting abnormality in CGA. The vulnerable elders' survey-13 (VES-13) was also evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 70 years with solid tumors underwent a CGA after being screened with the CHS and VES-13. Analyses were conducted for the overall population and according to the disease status (early or advanced) and type of early cancer (breast or gastrointestinal, GI).

RESULTS

Of 259 patients, 75% were impaired according to the CHS and 47% according to the VES-13. CGA impairment was reported in 171 patients (66%). In the overall population, overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of CHS in identifying CGA impairments were 74%, 87% and 49%, respectively. The corresponding figures for the VES-13 were 68%, 62% and 81%. Sensitivity and specificity of CHS in predicting CGA impairments in subgroups were early 81% and 55%, advanced 98% and 29%; early breast 78% and 69%, early GI 87.5% and 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

The CHS compared favourably with VES-13 for sensitivity. However, the great variability in specificity observed with the CHS within subgroups limits its applicability in the global population.

Frailty screening methods for predicting outcome of a comprehensive geriatric assessment in elderly patients with cancer: a systematic review

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is done to detect vulnerability in elderly patients with cancer so that treatment can be adjusted accordingly; however, this process is time-consuming and pre-screening is often used to identify fit patients who are able to receive standard treatment versus those in whom a full CGA should be done. We aimed to assess which of the frailty screening methods available show the best sensitivity and specificity for predicting the presence of impairments on CGA in elderly patients with cancer. We did a systematic search of Medline and Embase, and a hand-search of conference abstracts, for studies on the association between frailty screening outcome and results of CGA in elderly patients with cancer. Our search identified 4440 reports, of which 22 publications from 14 studies, were included in this Review. Seven different frailty screening methods were assessed. The median sensitivity and specificity of each screening method for predicting frailty on CGA were as follows: Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13), 68% and 78%; Geriatric 8 (G8), 87% and 61%; Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST 1+; patient considered frail if one or more impairments present), 92% and 47%, Groningen Frailty Index (GFI) 57% and 86%, Fried frailty criteria 31% and 91%, Barber 59% and 79%, and abbreviated CGA (aCGA) 51% and 97%. However, even in case of the highest sensitivity, the negative predictive value was only roughly 60%. G8 and TRST 1+ had the highest sensitivity for frailty, but both had poor specificity and negative predictive value. These findings suggest that, for now, it might be beneficial for all elderly patients with cancer to receive a complete geriatric assessment, since available frailty screening methods have insufficient discriminative power to select patients for further assessment.