Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025
The Prognostic Role of Frailty and Its Recognition With Simple FRAIL and Fried Frailty Questionnaires in Advanced Cancer Patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weinländer Pia, Hadzibegovic Sara, Porthun Jan, Kretzler Lucie, Evertz Ruben, Lena Alessia, Lück Laura-Carina, Hella Jonathan L, Wilkenshoff Ursula, Stroux Andrea, Keramida Kalliopi, Letsch Anne, Modest Dominik Paul, Bullinger Lars, Keller Ulrich, Karakas Mahir, Abdelwahed Youssef S, Attanasio Philipp, Rauch Ursula, Skurk Carsten, Doehner Wolfram, Landmesser Ulf, von Haehling Stephan, Anker Markus S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer frequently suffer from frailty associated with vulnerability and adverse outcomes. Our aim was to assess the prevalence of frailty and elucidate the utility of two commonly used frailty questionnaires in an advanced cancer population.
METHODS: The Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) and Simple FRAIL Questionnaire (SFQ) were assessed in hospitalized patients with mostly advanced cancer. Patients were classified by both questionnaires as frail (3-5 points), pre-frail (1-2 points) and robust (0 points) and followed up for all-cause mortality. Utility was evaluated with correlation and survival analysis.
RESULTS: From 11/2017 to 02/2020, 251 mostly advanced cancer patients (61 ± 13 years, 53% men, BMI 25.3 ± 4.8 kg/m2, 78% cancer stage ≥ 3) were prospectively enrolled. In cancer patients, according to the FFP and SFQ, 17%/13% were frail, 52%/41% prefrail and 31%/47% robust. The correlation between both scores was strong (rs = 0.65, p < 0.001). Both scores were predictors of mortality of cancer patients in univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses (multivariable adjusted: per 1 point: FFP: HR 1.36, 95% CI, 1.15-1.61, p < 0.001; SFQ: HR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.09-1.52, p = 0.003-adjustment for age, cancer stage/type, anti-cancer therapy naïve, sex, BMI, CKD and anaemia). The time-dependent multivariable adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for 6-/24-month survival follow-up for the FFP was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86)/0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.98) and for the SFQ was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88)/0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.97).
CONCLUSION: Frailty and pre-frailty as assessed by FFP and SFQ are commonly found in advanced stage cancer patients. Both questionnaires have a strong correlation and are associated with all-cause mortality in this population. Since the SFQ is easier and quicker to perform, it can be used remotely, and with untrained staff, it might facilitate earlier preventive measures and initiate further actions to mitigate its impact.
METHODS: The Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) and Simple FRAIL Questionnaire (SFQ) were assessed in hospitalized patients with mostly advanced cancer. Patients were classified by both questionnaires as frail (3-5 points), pre-frail (1-2 points) and robust (0 points) and followed up for all-cause mortality. Utility was evaluated with correlation and survival analysis.
RESULTS: From 11/2017 to 02/2020, 251 mostly advanced cancer patients (61 ± 13 years, 53% men, BMI 25.3 ± 4.8 kg/m2, 78% cancer stage ≥ 3) were prospectively enrolled. In cancer patients, according to the FFP and SFQ, 17%/13% were frail, 52%/41% prefrail and 31%/47% robust. The correlation between both scores was strong (rs = 0.65, p < 0.001). Both scores were predictors of mortality of cancer patients in univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses (multivariable adjusted: per 1 point: FFP: HR 1.36, 95% CI, 1.15-1.61, p < 0.001; SFQ: HR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.09-1.52, p = 0.003-adjustment for age, cancer stage/type, anti-cancer therapy naïve, sex, BMI, CKD and anaemia). The time-dependent multivariable adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for 6-/24-month survival follow-up for the FFP was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86)/0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.98) and for the SFQ was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88)/0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.97).
CONCLUSION: Frailty and pre-frailty as assessed by FFP and SFQ are commonly found in advanced stage cancer patients. Both questionnaires have a strong correlation and are associated with all-cause mortality in this population. Since the SFQ is easier and quicker to perform, it can be used remotely, and with untrained staff, it might facilitate earlier preventive measures and initiate further actions to mitigate its impact.