Oncotarget

Research Papers:

Clinical implication of a quantitative frailty assessment tool for prognosis in patients with urological cancers

Osamu Soma, Shingo Hatakeyama _, Teppei Okamoto, Naoki Fujita, Teppei Matsumoto, Yuki Tobisawa, Tohru Yoneyama, Hayato Yamamoto, Takahiro Yoneyama, Yasuhiro Hashimoto, Takuya Koie, Shigeyuki Nakaji and Chikara Ohyama

PDF  |  HTML  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2018; 9:17396-17405. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24712

Metrics: PDF 1392 views  |   HTML 1837 views  |   ?  


Abstract

Osamu Soma1, Shingo Hatakeyama1, Teppei Okamoto1, Naoki Fujita1, Teppei Matsumoto1, Yuki Tobisawa1, Tohru Yoneyama2, Hayato Yamamoto1, Takahiro Yoneyama1, Yasuhiro Hashimoto2, Takuya Koie1, Shigeyuki Nakaji3 and Chikara Ohyama1,2

1Department of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan

2Department of Advanced Transplant and Regenerative Medicine, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan

3Department of Social Medicine, Hirosaki University School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan

Correspondence to:

Shingo Hatakeyama, email: [email protected]

Keywords: frailty; gait speed; urological cancer; prostate cancer; urothelial carcinoma

Received: January 08, 2018     Accepted: February 26, 2018     Published: April 03, 2018

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Optimal tools for evaluating frailty among urological cancer patients remain unclear. We aimed to develop a quantitative frailty assessment tool comparing healthy individuals and urological cancer patients, and investigate the clinical implication of quantitative frailty on prognosis in urological cancer patients.

Results: Gait speed, hemoglobin, serum albumin, exhaustion, and depression were significantly worse in patients with all types of cancers than in pair-matched controls. Frailty discriminant score (FDS) showed clear separation between controls and urological cancer patients, and significant association with the Fried criteria. Overall survivals were significantly shorter in patients with a higher score (>2.30) than in those with a lower score among nonprostate cancer (bladder, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma) patients. In prostate cancer patients, overall survivals were significantly shorter in patients with a higher score (>3.30) than in those with a lower score.

Conclusions: FDS was significantly associated with frailty and prognosis in urological cancer patients. This tool for frailty assessment can help patients and physicians make more informed decisions. Further validation study is needed.

Materials and Methods: Total 605 urological cancer patients presenting to our hospital underwent a prospective frailty assessment. Controls were selected from 2280 community-dwelling subjects. Frailty was assessed via physical status, blood biochemical tests, and mental status. We compared frailty variables between pair-matched controls and urological cancer patients. We developed FDS using frailty variables, and compared with the Fried criteria. The influence of FDS on overall survivals was investigated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis.


Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 24712