title: Performance of two geriatric screening tools in older patients with cancer.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the diagnostic characteristics of two geriatric screening tools (G8 and Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool [fTRST]) to identify patients with a geriatric risk profile and to evaluate their prognostic value for functional decline and overall survival (OS).
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients ≥ 70 years old with a malignant tumor were included if a new cancer event occurred requiring treatment decision. Geriatric screening with G8 and fTRST (cutoff ≥ 1 [fTRST (1)] and ≥ 2 [fTRST (2)] evaluated) was performed in all patients, as well as a geriatric assessment (GA) evaluating social situation, functionality (activities of daily living [ADL] + instrumental activities of daily living [IADL]), cognition, depression, and nutrition. Functionality was re-evaluated 2 to 3 months after cancer treatment decision, and death rate was followed. Functional decline and OS were evaluated in relation to normal versus abnormal score on both screening tools.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Nine hundred thirty-seven patients were included (October 2009 to July 2011). G8 and fTRST (1) showed high sensitivity (86.5% to 91.3%) and moderate negative predictive value (61.3% to 63.4%) to detect patients with a geriatric risk profile. G8 and fTRST (1) were strongly prognostic for functional decline on ADL and IADL, and G8, fTRST (1), and fTRST (2) were prognostic for OS (all P < .001). G8 had the strongest prognostic value for OS (hazard ratio for G8 normal v abnormal, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.52).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both geriatric screening tools, G8 and fTRST, are simple and useful instruments in older patients with cancer for identifying patients with a geriatric risk profile and have a strong prognostic value for functional decline and OS.
authors.affiliation: Cindy Kenis, Koen Milisen, Johan Flamaing, and Hans Wildiers, University Hospitals Leuven; Koen Milisen, Johan Flamaing, and Hans Wildiers, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; Lore Decoster, Katrien Van Puyvelde, Jacques De Grève, and Godelieve Conings, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels; and Jean-Pierre Lobelle, Consultant in Statistics, Beernem, Belgium.
authors.forename: Cindy
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Kenis
authors.forename: Lore
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Decoster
authors.forename: Katrien
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Van Puyvelde
authors.forename: Jacques
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: De Grève
authors.forename: Godelieve
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Conings
authors.forename: Koen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Milisen
authors.forename: Johan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Flamaing
authors.forename: Jean-Pierre
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Lobelle
authors.forename: Hans
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Wildiers
mesh_terms: D000203:Activities of Daily Living; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001530:Belgium / Q000453:epidemiology; D003071:Cognition; D003863:Depression / Q000175:diagnosis; D005260:Female; D015577:Geriatric Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D006785:Hospitals, University; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000401:mortality*; D009752:Nutritional Status; D016017:Odds Ratio; D011379:Prognosis; D011446:Prospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires / Q000592:standards*; D016019:Survival Analysis