Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Predictive Accuracy of Chemotherapy Toxicity Tools in Older Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis

  • Edwin Aguirre-Milachay
    ,
  • Mario J. Valladares-Garrido
    ,
  • Nallely V. Chapoñan-Agip
    ,
  • Nelson Luis Cahuapaza-Gutierrez
    ,
  • Betzy C. Torres-Zegarra
    ,
  • Milagros Diaz-Torres
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Hospital Nacional Almanzor Aguinaga Asenjo, EsSalud
    ,
  • Universidad Señor de Sipán
    ,
  • Subgerencia de Atención Preventivo Promocional y Complejidad Creciente
    ,
  • Escuela de Medicina Humana
    ,
  • Universidad Científica del Sur
    ,
  • Carrera Profesional de Medicina Humana
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Open access

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Original language

English

Article number

2478

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Cancers (Volume 18, Issue 15)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 08/2026

Publication status

Published - 08/2026

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 105047005159

Abstract

Background: Older adults with cancer are at increased risk of severe treatment-related toxicity. CARG, CRASH, and CARG-BC were developed as toxicity-risk prediction models, whereas G8 was developed as a geriatric screening instrument but has also been evaluated as a predictor of treatment-related toxicity. This study aimed to assess, separately for each instrument, the accuracy with which these tools identify older adults who develop severe chemotherapy-related toxicity. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Seven databases were searched through May 2026 for observational studies evaluating the predictive accuracy of the CARG, CRASH, CARG-BC and G8 tools in patients aged ≥65 years initiating chemotherapy. Pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and ROC curves were constructed. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: Twenty-one studies were included, with an overall toxicity prevalence of 52.6%. CARG demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 79.7% and specificity of 38.3% (AUC = 0.632). CRASH showed sensitivity of 86.9% and specificity of 68.2% (AUC = 0.866), but estimates were based on only four studies. CRASH hematological toxicity showed sensitivity of 75.9% and specificity of 53.1% (AUC = 0.694), with substantial heterogeneity. G8 yielded sensitivity of 69.5% and specificity of 41.5% (AUC = 0.666). CARG-BC showed sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 54.4% (AUC = 0.763), based on two breast cancer studies. Certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. Conclusions: The instruments have distinct purposes and were not pooled against one another. CARG and G8 may be useful for initial risk screening, whereas CRASH showed a more balanced profile but remains supported by limited evidence. None should be used as a stand-alone basis to withhold or modify treatment.

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well