Oncologie

, 13:69 | Cite as

Faut-il modéliser l’EGS ?

Synthèse / Review article
  • 51 Downloads

Résumé

L’évaluation gériatrique standardisée (EGS), par les interventions qu’elle engendre, a largement prouvé son intérêt dans la population âgée générale en diminuant le taux de mortalité et d’hospitalisation. Elle améliore aussi la survie des patients âgés atteints de cancer en situation métastatique. Son utilisation au quotidien par des équipes non entraînées reste difficile et chronophage. Des outils de dépistage sont en cours de validation. Unemodélisation de l’EGS pourrait contribuer à dégager des facteurs prédictifs de chimiotoxicité. L’utilisation de ces outils pose le problème de la coordination des différents acteurs indispensables pour proposer un parcours de soins optimal.

Mots clés

EGS VES13 Facteurs prédictifs de chimiotoxicité Parcours de soins 

Modelling Geriatric Assessment

Abstract

Standardised geriatric assessment amply proves its value in the elderly by reducing the rates of mortality and hospital admission through the interventional measures that it generates. It also improves the survival of the elderly with metastatic cancer. Its everyday use by untrained teams remains problematic and timeconsuming. Screening tools are currently being validated. Modelling of standardised geriatric assessment might help to define the features, which are predictive of the toxicity of chemotherapy. The use of these tools poses the problem of coordination among the variety of personnel who are essential to ensure that the care pathway is optimal.

Keywords

Geriatric Multidimensional Assessment VES13 Predictive factors of chemo toxicity Health Support 

Références

  1. 1.
    Cohen HJ, Feussner JR, Weinberger M, et al. (2002) A controlled trial of inpatient and outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. N Eng J Med 346: 905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Extermann M, Boler I, Reich R, et al (2010) The Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients (CRASH) score: design and validation J Clin Oncol 28: 15s (suppl; abstr 9000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Extermann M, Bonetti M, Sledge GW, et al. (2004) MAX2 a convenient index to estimate the average per patient risk for chemotherapy toxicity: validation in ECOG trials. Eur J Cancer 40: 1193–1198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Girre V, Falcou MC, Gisselbrecht M (2008) Does a geriatric oncology consultation modify the cancer treatment plan for elderly patients? J Gerontol 63: 724–730Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hurria A, Togawa K, Mohile SG, et al. (2010) Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective 500 patient multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 28: 15s (suppl; abstr 9001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luciani A, Ascione G, Bertuzzi C, et al (2010) Dectecting disabilities in older patient with cancer: comparison between comprehensive geriatric assessment and VES13. J Clin Oncol 12: 2046–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCorkle R, Strumpf N, Nuamah Isaac, et al. (2000) A specialized home care intervention improves survival among older postsurgical cancer patients. JAGS 48: 1707–1713Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohile SG, Bylow K, Dlae W, et al (2007) A pilot Study of the VES13 compared with the comprehensive geriatric assessment for identifying disability in older patients with prostate cancer who receive androgen ablation. Cancer 109: 802–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Repetto L, Fratino L, Audisio RA, et al. (2002) Comprehensive geriatric assesment adds information to ECOG PS in elderly cancer patients: An Italian Group for Geriatric Oncology Study. J Clin Oncol 20: 494–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reuben DB, Franck JC, Hirsch SH, et al (1999) A randomized clinical trial of out patient comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) coupled with an intervention, to increase adherence to recommendations. J Am Geriatr Soc 47: 269–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wedding U, Ködding D, Pientka L, et al. (2007) Physician’s judgement and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) select different patients as fit for chemotherapy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 64: 1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unité d’oncologie médicale UPCOGcentre hospitalier de SenlisSenlisFrance

Personalised recommendations