Advertisement

Clinical Assessment: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment

  • Siri Rostoft
Chapter

Abstract

As people age, the differences in health status between individuals become larger. For this reason, there is no universally accepted cutoff for defining an “older” adult. Chronological age itself is less important than biological events in driving the aging process within an individual. However, the use of chronological age is a practical way of defining a target population. In geriatric oncology, 70 years is the most commonly used cutoff for defining patients as older adults. The majority of age-related changes lead to reduced function, but the heterogeneity of the aging process has practical consequences for the assessment of older patients with breast cancer: patients need individualized assessments to determine their biological or functional age. Biological age is believed to reflect a person’s remaining life expectancy and functional reserves, and will influence treatment decisions and predict treatment tolerance. There is no simple way to assess biological age, and one the best clinical tools available to date is a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA).

Keywords

Frailty Comprehensive geriatric assessment Functional status Cognitive impairment Preoperative assessment 

References

  1. 1.
    Ellis G, Whitehead MA, O’Neill D, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(7):CD006211.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sattar S, Alibhai SM, Wildiers H, et al. How to implement a geriatric assessment in your clinical practice. Oncologist. 2014;19:1056–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Falandry C, Krakowski I, Curé H, et al. Impact of geriatric assessment for the therapeutic decision-making of breast cancer: results of a French survey. AFSOS and SOFOG collaborative work. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168:433–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Okonji D, Sinha R, Phillips I, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in 326 older women with early breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2017;117:925.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamaker M, Seynaeve C, Wymenga A, et al. Baseline comprehensive geriatric assessment is associated with toxicity and survival in elderly metastatic breast cancer patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy: results from the OMEGA study of the Dutch breast cancer trialists’ group. Breast. 2014;23:81–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hamaker ME, Wildes TM, Rostoft S. Time to stop saying geriatric assessment is too time consuming. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2871–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warrell DA, Cox TM, Firth JD, et al. Screening older cancer patients: first evaluation of the G-8 geriatric screening tool. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:2166–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walter LC, Brand RJ, Counsell SR, et al. Development and validation of a prognostic index for 1-year mortality in older adults after hospitalization. JAMA. 2001;285:2987–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA. 2011;305:50–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Repetto L, Fratino L, Audisio RA, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment adds information to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in elderly cancer patients: an Italian Group for Geriatric Oncology Study. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Welch HG, Albertsen PC, Nease RF, et al. Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:577–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Piccirillo JF, Tierney RM, Costas I, et al. Prognostic importance of comorbidity in a hospital-based cancer registry. JAMA. 2004;291:2441–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Read WL. Differential prognostic impact of comorbidity. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3099–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salvi F, Miller MD, Grilli A, et al. A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56:1926–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turner JP, Shakib S, Bell JS. Is my older cancer patient on too many medications? J Geriatr Oncol. 2017;8:77–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Treanor CJ, McMenamin U, O’Neill R, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment. status and date: New, published in, 2014.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mitchell SL. Advanced dementia. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2533–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Borson S, Scanlan J, Brush M, et al. The Mini-Cog: a cognitive ‘vital signs’ measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000;15:1021–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perna L, Wahl H-W, Mons U, et al. Cognitive impairment, all-cause and cause-specific mortality among non-demented older adults. Age Ageing. 2014;44:445–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lange M, Rigal O, Clarisse B, et al. Cognitive dysfunctions in elderly cancer patients: a new challenge for oncologists. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40:810–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arends J, Bachmann P, Baracos V, et al. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2017;36:11–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ. Assessing the nutritional status of the elderly: the Mini Nutritional Assessment as part of the geriatric evaluation. Nutr Rev. 1996;54:S59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinberger MI, Roth AJ, Nelson CJ. Untangling the complexities of depression diagnosis in older cancer patients. Oncologist. 2009;14:60–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1982;17:37–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mahoney R: Barthel index (BI). Surya Shah, PhD, OTD, MEd, OTR, FAOTA, Professor Occupational Therapy and Neurology, Visiting Professor Neurorehabilitation, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center 930:1; 1965.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nouri F, Lincoln N. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:301–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siri Rostoft
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geriatric MedicineOslo University Hospital and University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations