Are the Fried Criteria Predictive of a Functional Decline in Older People With Solid Malignant Tumors?

April 2, 2019 updated by: Murielle Surquin, Brugmann University Hospital

Identifying the frail elderly patients or those at risk of becoming frail has become a cornerstone of modern geriatric medicine. Many instruments have been developed to identify fragility at the individual level. The 'Fragile' phenotype defined by Fried is based on 5 criteria: weakness, slowness, low level of activity, exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss. The patient is fragile if it meets at least three out of five criteria. It is 'pre-fragile' if it meets one or two criteria.

In onco-geriatrics, the International onco-geriatrics society recommends the implementation of a 'G8 scale' to detect elderly patients at risk of fragility. People with a positive G8 are then referred to the geriatric team to benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This evaluation is interpreted by the geriatrician, who proposes an action plan to overcome the various problems of the elderly patient. The evaluation can also help the oncologist in the choice of treatment for the patient: palliative care, standard treatment or adapted treatment (No-go, Go-go or slow-go).

The investigators would like to assess if fragility as defined by the Fried criteria is predictive of a functional, physical or cognitive decline, or a loss of quality of life in patients treated for a solid malignant tumor.

Furthermore, they will assess if the frailness categorization has an impact on the oncologic treatment decision. Does the oncologist switches the patient's oncologic treatment after being informed of the frailness status ?

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Identifying the frail elderly patients or those at risk of becoming frail has become a cornerstone of modern geriatric medicine. The term 'frail' has been elusive during quite a long time. Several studies have been conducted over the last 15 years to clarify this concept: fragility is a clinical syndrome defined by an increase of vulnerability following a decline in physiological reserves and organic functions, that compromises the ability to cope with daily life or acute stress.

Many instruments have been developed to identify fragility at the individual level. The 'Fragile' phenotype defined by Fried (Cardiovascular Health Study) is based on 5 criteria: weakness, slowness, low level of activity, exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss. The patient is fragile if it meets at least three out of five criteria. It is 'pre-fragile' if it meets one or two criteria.

In onco-geriatrics, the International onco-geriatrics society recommends the implementation of a 'G8 scale' to detect elderly patients at risk of fragility. People with a positive G8 are then referred to the geriatric team to benefit from a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This evaluation is interpreted by the geriatrician, who draws an action plan to overcome the various problems of the elderly patient. The evaluation also helps the oncologist in the choice of treatment for the patient: palliative care, standard treatment or adapted treatment (No-go, Go-go or slow-go).

However, many studies have shown that fragile patients had a greater morbidity and mortality than non-fragile patients. The rate of postoperative complications and the length of stay are significantly higher in fragile patients suffering from a colorectal cancer treated by elective surgery.

On the other hand and quite surprisingly, another study showed that none of the comprehensive geriatric assessment based fragility indicators was able to predict a post-surgery functional decline in patients having undergone surgery for colorectal cancer.

One of the primary goals of geriatry being to maintain the autonomy and independence of patients.

The investigators would thus like to assess if fragility as defined by the Fried criteria is predictive of a functional, physical or cognitive decline, or a loss of quality of life in patients treated for a solid malignant tumor.

Furthermore, they will assess if the frailness categorization has an impact on the oncologic treatment decision. Does the oncologist switches the patient's oncologic treatment after being informed of the frailness status ?

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

62

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Brussels, Belgium, 1070
        • Erasme hospital
      • Brussels, Belgium
        • CHU Brugmann

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

70 years and older (Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Elderly patients with solid tumors

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with a solid malign tumor: ovary cancer, breast cancer, digestive cancer (colo-rectal, pancreas), lung cancer, urinary tract cancer (including bladder cancer).
  • Patients having not undergone treatment yet (be it surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy)
  • Ambulatory or hospitalized patients

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients unable to participate in the global geriatric evaluation (auditive or visual problems)
  • Language barrier
  • Clear therapeutic abstention
  • Bedridden patients

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: Other
  • Time Perspectives: Prospective

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Elderly patients with solid tumors
The group will include elderly patients with a malignant solid tumor: ovary cancer, breast cancer, digestive cancer (colo-rectal, pancreas), lung cancer or urinary tract cancer (including bladder cancer).
Assess the quality of life ('SF-36' questionnaire) of patients 3 and 6 months after oncologic treatment. Since a diagnosis of frailness will have been established before the oncologic treatment, a correlation between the decline and the 'frail' categorization according to the Fried criteria can be established or denied.
Assess functional decline ('Katz ADL' Score and 'Lawton IADL' Score) 3 and 6 months after oncologic treatment. Since a diagnosis of frailness will have been established before the oncologic treatment, a correlation between the decline and the 'frail' categorization according to the Fried criteria can be established or denied.
Assess physical decline (walking speed and prehension force) 3 and 6 months after oncologic treatment. Since a diagnosis of frailness will have been established before the oncologic treatment, a correlation between the decline and the 'frail' categorization according to the Fried criteria can be established or denied.
Assess cognitive decline 3 and 6 months ('MMSE 30' questionnaire) after oncologic treatment. Since a diagnosis of frailness will have been established before the oncologic treatment, a correlation between the decline and the 'frail' categorization according to the Fried criteria can be established or denied.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Functional decline - Katz (ADL)
Time Frame: 3 months after oncologic treatment
The functional decline will be assessed by using the Katz Basic Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score
3 months after oncologic treatment
Functional decline - Katz (ADL)
Time Frame: 6 months after oncologic treatment
The functional decline will be assessed by using the Katz Basic Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score
6 months after oncologic treatment
Functional decline - Lawton (IADL)
Time Frame: 3 months after oncologic treatment
The functional decline will be assessed by using the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) score
3 months after oncologic treatment
Functional decline - Lawton (IADL)
Time Frame: 6 months after oncologic treatment
The functional decline will be assessed by using the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) score
6 months after oncologic treatment
Physical decline - walking speed
Time Frame: 3 months after oncologic treatment
Will be assessed by the 'Timed Up and Go' test (TUG)
3 months after oncologic treatment
Physical decline - walking speed
Time Frame: 6 months after oncologic treatment
Will be assessed by the 'Timed Up and Go' test (TUG)
6 months after oncologic treatment
Physical decline - prehension force
Time Frame: 3 months after oncologic treatment
Prehension force (Grip test) will be measured
3 months after oncologic treatment
Physical decline - prehension force
Time Frame: 6 months after oncologic treatment
Prehension force (Grip test) will be measured
6 months after oncologic treatment
Cognitive decline - MMSE 30
Time Frame: 3 months after oncologic treatment
Will be assessed by the mini mental state evaluation (MMSE 30) questionnaire
3 months after oncologic treatment
Cognitive decline - MMSE 30
Time Frame: 6 months after oncologic treatment
Will be assessed by the mini mental state evaluation (MMSE 30) questionnaire
6 months after oncologic treatment
Quality of life - SF 36
Time Frame: 3 months after oncologic treatment
Will be assessed by the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire
3 months after oncologic treatment
Quality of life - SF36
Time Frame: 6 months after oncologic treatment
Will be assessed by the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire
6 months after oncologic treatment

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Switch in oncologic treatment decision
Time Frame: Between diagnosis and oncologic treatment - maximum 8 weeks
Patients will be classified as frail, vulnerable or robust according to the Fried criteria. Does the oncologist changes his/her therapeutic treatment decision after being aware of the frailness categorization ?
Between diagnosis and oncologic treatment - maximum 8 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Florence Rousseau, MD, CHU Brugmann
  • Principal Investigator: Murielle Surquin, MD,PhD, CHU Brugmann

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

November 1, 2015

Primary Completion (Actual)

April 2, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

April 2, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

November 27, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 22, 2016

First Posted (Estimate)

January 25, 2016

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 4, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 2, 2019

Last Verified

April 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • CHUB-Fried

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Elderly Patients With a Solid Tumor

Clinical Trials on Quality of life evaluation

3
Subscribe