Sentry Page Protection


Submission To Be Reviewed

Title:  A clinical pathway model for the elderly with cancer: outcomes in a series of 75 years old and older patients

Journal Section


Objective: to describe the outcomes of the older cancer patient referred to our hospital ward and following a specific institutional clinical pathway model.

Study design: comparative prospective cohort study.

Methods: from February 2016 to August 2017 all 75 old and older patients were assessed by G8 screening test. If the G8 score was > 14 they were considered as fit and eligible for any standard treatment. In case the G8 score was < 14, they were later assessed by a geriatrician according to CGA (Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment). Following this evaluation they were classified as unfit (intermediate functional condition) or frail, and they were considered eligible for modified cancer therapy, or only for palliative care, respectively. 

Results: 140 patients were enrolled (76 men,  64 women; median age 81,6). The most frequent cancers were colon (22,9%), breast (18.9%) prostate (11.5%) and lung cancer (7.5%).

40 patients (28.6%) were classified fit, and 100 (71.4%) unfit/frail.

Seven (7%) of these 100 patients refused the CGA evaluation, and, of the remaining 93 patients, 64 (68.8%) were classified unfit and 29 (31.2%) frail.

A total of 61 fit/unfit patients underwent chemotherapy (19 fit and 42 unfit), while frail patients underwent palliative care. Eight toxicities over grade 2 occurred, two haematological toxicities in fit patients, and six (haematological, gastroenteric and cutaneous toxicities) in unfit patients. 

Conclusions: the above reported care pathway model could be suitable in order to select the more convenient modality of approach for the elderly patient with cancer


Key words: 

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, G8, Older

Review Schedule

Editor's request 09-08-2018

Your Response 

Review Submitted 

Review Due 


1) Does this paper present new ideas or results that have not been previously published? 2) Is the research presented in the article new or build upon existing research? 3) Does the article point out differences from related research?
Does the article make a considerable contribution to the oncology field?
1) Does the title clearly express the content of the article? Is 2) Is the abstract sufficiently informative and provides a good perspective on the final message of the aricle?
1) Are the methods used clearly explained? 2) Are they a recognized approach? 3) Are the data and statistics used reliable?
1) Are they clearly presented? 2) Do they avoid misinterpretation? 3) Do they sufficiently avoid assumptions and speculations?
1) Do they reflect the latest research in the area? 2) Are they correctly indicated in article? 3) Are they correctly formatted according to the author guidelines?
1) Are the tables correctly name and numbered? 2) Are the data presented in the table correctly interpreted in the article?
1) Are the figures correctly named and numbered? 2) Do they properly illustrate what is discussed in the article? 3) Are they correctly interpreted in the article?
1) Is the article clearly written?
1) Does the article fit the guidelines for the section as outlined in the instructions to authors?
Please rate the article in priority for publication based on the interest to our readership and contribution to the oncology field. (5) Being of hieghest priority and (1) being the lowest.