The implementation of frailty assessment in gynecologic oncology: an international multicenter JAGO-NOGGO survey

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
C. Flethe, C. Krause, A. von Beckerath, S. Alavi-Demirci, G. Kolb, M. Beck, K. Pietzner, J. Sehouli
{"title":"The implementation of frailty assessment in gynecologic oncology: an international multicenter JAGO-NOGGO survey","authors":"C. Flethe,&nbsp;C. Krause,&nbsp;A. von Beckerath,&nbsp;S. Alavi-Demirci,&nbsp;G. Kolb,&nbsp;M. Beck,&nbsp;K. Pietzner,&nbsp;J. Sehouli","doi":"10.1007/s00404-025-08129-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The global aging trend is expected to double the population aged 65 and older by 2050, posing new challenges for healthcare systems. Frailty is associated with poorer prognosis, increased postoperative complications, and reduced treatment tolerance. Accurate frailty assessment (FA) is therefore crucial for diagnosis, risk stratification, and individualized treatment planning. Despite its clinical relevance, clear evidence-based guidance for implementation in gynecologic oncology remains lacking<b>.</b></p><h3>Methods</h3><p>An anonymous online survey with 51 multiple-choice and open-ended questions was conducted from May to August 2022. It targeted gynecologists and oncologists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and was distributed to 633 healthcare institutions.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 112 responses were analyzed, revealing considerable variation in the application of frailty assessments. Only 11% reported routine use, while 36% applied FA selectively. Screening tools varied: 52% used institution-specific forms, while validated instruments such as G8 or VES-13 were rarely used. Timing was inconsistent: 49% performed FA preoperatively, 36% before chemotherapy, 31% at first presentation, and 30% without a fixed timepoint. Prehabilitation programs were largely absent; only 21% of institutions offered them. 77% of respondents indicated a need for further training.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There are substantial gaps in the use of frailty assessments in gynecologic oncology. Standardized procedures, prehabilitation programs, and targeted education are essential to improve care quality and treatment outcomes in the context of an aging patient population.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":"312 4","pages":"1337 - 1344"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00404-025-08129-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00404-025-08129-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The global aging trend is expected to double the population aged 65 and older by 2050, posing new challenges for healthcare systems. Frailty is associated with poorer prognosis, increased postoperative complications, and reduced treatment tolerance. Accurate frailty assessment (FA) is therefore crucial for diagnosis, risk stratification, and individualized treatment planning. Despite its clinical relevance, clear evidence-based guidance for implementation in gynecologic oncology remains lacking.

Methods

An anonymous online survey with 51 multiple-choice and open-ended questions was conducted from May to August 2022. It targeted gynecologists and oncologists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and was distributed to 633 healthcare institutions.

Results

A total of 112 responses were analyzed, revealing considerable variation in the application of frailty assessments. Only 11% reported routine use, while 36% applied FA selectively. Screening tools varied: 52% used institution-specific forms, while validated instruments such as G8 or VES-13 were rarely used. Timing was inconsistent: 49% performed FA preoperatively, 36% before chemotherapy, 31% at first presentation, and 30% without a fixed timepoint. Prehabilitation programs were largely absent; only 21% of institutions offered them. 77% of respondents indicated a need for further training.

Conclusion

There are substantial gaps in the use of frailty assessments in gynecologic oncology. Standardized procedures, prehabilitation programs, and targeted education are essential to improve care quality and treatment outcomes in the context of an aging patient population.

虚弱评估在妇科肿瘤中的实施:一项国际多中心JAGO-NOGGO调查。
目的:全球老龄化趋势预计到2050年65岁及以上的人口将翻一番,这对医疗保健系统提出了新的挑战。虚弱与预后差、术后并发症增加和治疗耐受性降低有关。因此,准确的衰弱评估(FA)对于诊断、风险分层和个性化治疗计划至关重要。尽管其临床相关性,明确的循证指导实施妇科肿瘤仍然缺乏。方法:于2022年5月至8月进行匿名在线调查,共51道选择题和开放式问题。它的目标是德国、奥地利和瑞士的妇科医生和肿瘤科医生,并分发给633家医疗机构。结果:总共分析了112份回复,揭示了脆弱性评估应用的相当大的差异。只有11%的人报告常规使用,而36%的人有选择地使用FA。筛查工具各不相同:52%使用机构特定表格,而很少使用经过验证的工具,如G8或VES-13。时间不一致:术前49%,化疗前36%,首次就诊时31%,无固定时间点30%。康复项目基本上不存在;只有21%的院校提供这种课程。77%的受访者表示需要进一步培训。结论:虚弱评估在妇科肿瘤中的应用存在较大差距。标准化的程序、康复计划和有针对性的教育对于提高老年患者群体的护理质量和治疗效果至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信