老年癌症患者的临床决策:一项评估临床判断和患者偏好影响的横断面单中心研究

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine Acta Clinica Belgica Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1080/17843286.2022.2074702
Annelies Deldycke, Hannelore Denys, Alexander Decruyenaere, Anja Velghe, Eline Naert
{"title":"老年癌症患者的临床决策:一项评估临床判断和患者偏好影响的横断面单中心研究","authors":"Annelies Deldycke,&nbsp;Hannelore Denys,&nbsp;Alexander Decruyenaere,&nbsp;Anja Velghe,&nbsp;Eline Naert","doi":"10.1080/17843286.2022.2074702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The heterogeneity in the population of older patients with cancer makes clinical decision-making difficult. We investigated the agreement between the G8 score and clinical judgment in frailty assessments, determined the impact of a life-expectancy calculator, and explored patient and caregiver preferences towards the treatment goal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients aged ≥75 years in need of new oncological treatment were prospectively enrolled between June 2020 and February 2021. Frailty was estimated by the oncologist and caregiver and compared to the G8 estimation. We examined whether the oncologist changed the fit/frail estimation based on life expectancy calculated using the ePrognosis tool. The main treatment goals, either longevity or quality of life (QoL), from the patient's and caregiver's perspective were noted and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-nine patients were included in the analysis. Comparison of the oncologist's and the caregiver's frailty estimation with the G8 assessment showed agreement and a Kappa coefficient of 58.3% (0.231) and 60% (0.255), respectively. The ePrognosis score and the odds of change in the frailty estimation by the oncologist showed no correlation. Regarding preferences, 28 (57.1%) and 17 (34.7%) patients and eighteen (47.3%) and seventeen (44.7%) caregivers chose longevity and QoL, respectively. The observed agreement and Kappa coefficient were 78.8% and 0.578.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the G8 assessment, frailty was underestimated by both oncologists and caregivers. Most of the patients chose longevity over QoL, and the preferences between the patient and the caregiver matched in the majority of cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":7086,"journal":{"name":"Acta Clinica Belgica","volume":"78 2","pages":"103-111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical decision-making in older patients with cancer: a cross-sectional single-centre study to assess the impact of clinical judgement and patient preferences.\",\"authors\":\"Annelies Deldycke,&nbsp;Hannelore Denys,&nbsp;Alexander Decruyenaere,&nbsp;Anja Velghe,&nbsp;Eline Naert\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17843286.2022.2074702\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The heterogeneity in the population of older patients with cancer makes clinical decision-making difficult. We investigated the agreement between the G8 score and clinical judgment in frailty assessments, determined the impact of a life-expectancy calculator, and explored patient and caregiver preferences towards the treatment goal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients aged ≥75 years in need of new oncological treatment were prospectively enrolled between June 2020 and February 2021. Frailty was estimated by the oncologist and caregiver and compared to the G8 estimation. We examined whether the oncologist changed the fit/frail estimation based on life expectancy calculated using the ePrognosis tool. The main treatment goals, either longevity or quality of life (QoL), from the patient's and caregiver's perspective were noted and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-nine patients were included in the analysis. Comparison of the oncologist's and the caregiver's frailty estimation with the G8 assessment showed agreement and a Kappa coefficient of 58.3% (0.231) and 60% (0.255), respectively. The ePrognosis score and the odds of change in the frailty estimation by the oncologist showed no correlation. Regarding preferences, 28 (57.1%) and 17 (34.7%) patients and eighteen (47.3%) and seventeen (44.7%) caregivers chose longevity and QoL, respectively. The observed agreement and Kappa coefficient were 78.8% and 0.578.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the G8 assessment, frailty was underestimated by both oncologists and caregivers. Most of the patients chose longevity over QoL, and the preferences between the patient and the caregiver matched in the majority of cases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Clinica Belgica\",\"volume\":\"78 2\",\"pages\":\"103-111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Clinica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17843286.2022.2074702\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Clinica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17843286.2022.2074702","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:老年癌症患者群体的异质性给临床决策带来困难。我们调查了G8评分与衰弱评估的临床判断之间的一致性,确定了预期寿命计算器的影响,并探讨了患者和护理人员对治疗目标的偏好。方法:在2020年6月至2021年2月期间前瞻性纳入年龄≥75岁需要新肿瘤治疗的患者。虚弱程度由肿瘤学家和护理人员估计,并与八国集团的估计进行比较。我们检查了肿瘤学家是否改变了使用ePrognosis工具计算的基于预期寿命的健康/虚弱估计。主要的治疗目标,无论是寿命或生活质量(QoL),从患者和护理者的角度进行了记录和比较。结果:49例患者纳入分析。肿瘤医生和护理人员的虚弱评估与G8评估相比较,Kappa系数分别为58.3%(0.231)和60%(0.255)。ePrognosis评分和肿瘤学家对虚弱程度的估计变化的几率没有相关性。在偏好方面,分别有28名(57.1%)和17名(34.7%)患者和18名(47.3%)和17名(44.7%)护理人员选择长寿和生活质量。一致性和Kappa系数分别为78.8%和0.578。结论:与G8评估相比,肿瘤学家和护理人员都低估了虚弱。大多数患者选择长寿而不是生活质量,并且在大多数情况下,患者和护理人员之间的偏好相匹配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clinical decision-making in older patients with cancer: a cross-sectional single-centre study to assess the impact of clinical judgement and patient preferences.

Objective: The heterogeneity in the population of older patients with cancer makes clinical decision-making difficult. We investigated the agreement between the G8 score and clinical judgment in frailty assessments, determined the impact of a life-expectancy calculator, and explored patient and caregiver preferences towards the treatment goal.

Methods: Patients aged ≥75 years in need of new oncological treatment were prospectively enrolled between June 2020 and February 2021. Frailty was estimated by the oncologist and caregiver and compared to the G8 estimation. We examined whether the oncologist changed the fit/frail estimation based on life expectancy calculated using the ePrognosis tool. The main treatment goals, either longevity or quality of life (QoL), from the patient's and caregiver's perspective were noted and compared.

Results: Forty-nine patients were included in the analysis. Comparison of the oncologist's and the caregiver's frailty estimation with the G8 assessment showed agreement and a Kappa coefficient of 58.3% (0.231) and 60% (0.255), respectively. The ePrognosis score and the odds of change in the frailty estimation by the oncologist showed no correlation. Regarding preferences, 28 (57.1%) and 17 (34.7%) patients and eighteen (47.3%) and seventeen (44.7%) caregivers chose longevity and QoL, respectively. The observed agreement and Kappa coefficient were 78.8% and 0.578.

Conclusion: Compared to the G8 assessment, frailty was underestimated by both oncologists and caregivers. Most of the patients chose longevity over QoL, and the preferences between the patient and the caregiver matched in the majority of cases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Clinica Belgica
Acta Clinica Belgica 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Clinica Belgica: International Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Medicine primarily publishes papers on clinical medicine, clinical chemistry, pathology and molecular biology, provided they describe results which contribute to our understanding of clinical problems or describe new methods applicable to clinical investigation. Readership includes physicians, pathologists, pharmacists and physicians working in non-academic and academic hospitals, practicing internal medicine and its subspecialties.
期刊最新文献
Flemish consensus statement on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections in older nursing home residents. Validation of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing directly from positive blood cultures in a non-automated lab setting. A multimodal treatment of basilar artery re-occlusion - case report. 'Iatrogenic septic pit': empyema, a rare complication after endobronchial valve placement. The first reported familial case of statin-induced immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy associated with anti-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase autoantibodies and HLA DRB1*11:01
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1