Evidence Hub

Predicting frailty domain impairments and mortality with the Hospital Frailty Risk Score among older adults with cancer: the ELCAPA-EDS cohort study

Charline Jean, E. Paillaud, Pascaline Boudou-Rouquette, C. Martinez-Tapia, F. Pamoukdjian, Meoïn Hagège, S. Bréant, C. Hassen-Khodja et al.

Age and Ageing, 2024

587 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Automated frailty screening tools like the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) are primarily validated for care consumption outcomes. We assessed the predictive ability of the HFRS regarding care consumption outcomes, frailty domain impairments and mortality among older adults with cancer, using the Geriatric 8 (G8) screening tool as a clinical benchmark.

METHODS

This retrospective, linkage-based study included patients aged ≥70 years with solid tumor, enrolled in the Elderly Cancer Patients (ELCAPA) multicentre cohort study (2016-2020) and hospitalized in acute care within the Greater Paris University Hospitals. HFRS scores, which encompass hospital-acquired problems and frailty-related syndromes, were calculated using data from the index admission and the preceding 6 months. A multidomain geriatric assessment (GA), including cognition, nutrition, mood, functional status, mobility, comorbidities, polypharmacy, incontinence, and social environment, was conducted at ELCAPA inclusion, with computation of the G8 score. Logistic and Cox regressions measured associations between the G8, HFRS, altered GA domains, length of stay exceeding 10 days, 30-day readmission, and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 587 patients included (median age 82 years, metastatic cancer 47.0%), 237 (40.4%) were at increased frailty risk by the HFRS (HFRS>5) and 261 (47.5%) by the G8 (G8≤10). Both HFRS and G8 were significantly associated with cognitive and functional impairments, incontinence,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 587 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free