Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Use of a Chemotherapy Toxicity Prediction Tool to Decrease Risks for Hospitalization in Older Patients
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Use of a Chemotherapy Toxicity Prediction Tool to Decrease Risks for Hospitalization in Older Patients
Do you wish to request the book?
Use of a Chemotherapy Toxicity Prediction Tool to Decrease Risks for Hospitalization in Older Patients
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Use of a Chemotherapy Toxicity Prediction Tool to Decrease Risks for Hospitalization in Older Patients
2022
Overview
Objectives Performance status (PS) scales such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS and the Karnofsky Performance Index have limited utility in selecting therapies and predicting related adverse events in older patients with cancer. In July 2016, medical oncologists at our institution adopted the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity prediction score (CARG), a toxicity prediction tool, to identify patients who are \"fit\" for chemotherapy versus those who are \"frail\" and may experience severe complications. Methods Our retrospective review included referrals of beneficiaries 75 years of age and older who received standard systemic therapy and patients of the same age whose treatment was modified due to CARG. We compared the score's utilization six months before and after its incorporation and then assessed how its application impacted admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and medical management. Results Thirty-eight patients with a mean age of 81 years met the inclusion criteria. Their diagnoses included gastrointestinal (37%), lung (21%), hematologic (18%), breast (10.5%), genitourinary (3%), and other (10.5%) malignancies. CARG was documented for 12.5% of systemic therapy recipients before its adoption and 41% of recipients after adoption. Its use was limited by the reliance on physicians to perform scoring during time-constrained patient encounters. Patients had fewer mean inpatient admissions (0.7 versus 2.3), admission days (4.3 versus 8), and ED visits (1.1 versus 2.5) when management was modified based on the score. Conclusion CARG assessment may facilitate a safer and more tailored approach to cancer care in older patients than conventional PS scales alone. Its integration into patient screening would increase its application and better define its potential predictive capacity to decrease risks for hospitalization.
