Abstract
Several societies have published recommendations for evaluating older adults with cancer in standard conditions. It is vital to assure a proper systematic patient condition evaluation, not only in the oldest (geriatric assessment) but in all adult patients. We have investigated the feasibility of a systematic evaluation of the general condition of all patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies, and the degree of acceptance by the clinical team, in a prospective cohort of 182 consecutive adults, by using the ECOG performance status scale (ECOG, age 18 and over, 18+), Lee Index for Older Adults (LEE, 50+), Geriatric Assessment in Hematology (GAH, 65+), and the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA, 75+). Clinical team acceptance was analyzed with a visual analogue scale, and the objective feasibility was calculated as the proportion of patients that could be finally evaluated with each tool. Acceptance was high, but the objective feasibility was progressively lower as the complexity of the different tools increased (ECOG 100%, LEE 99.4%, GAH 93.2%, and CGA 67.9%). LEE and GAH categories showed a weak concordance (Cohen's Kappa 0.24) that was slight between LEE and CGA (Kappa 0.18). Unexpectedly, we found no significant association between the GAH and CGA categories (p = 0.16). We confirm that a systematic evaluation of all adult patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies is feasible in daily practice by using an age-adapted approach. Direct comparisons among the different predictive tools in regard to patients' tolerance to treatments of different intensities must be a priority research subject in the coming years.