The Confusion Assessment Method Could Be More Accurate than the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale for Diagnosing Delirium in Older Cancer Patients: An Exploratory Study
- PMID: 37754513
- PMCID: PMC10529689
- DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30090598
The Confusion Assessment Method Could Be More Accurate than the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale for Diagnosing Delirium in Older Cancer Patients: An Exploratory Study
Abstract
Background: Older people with cancer carry a high risk of delirium, an underdiagnosed syndrome due to its diagnostic complexity and often subtle presentation. Tools based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) are available to different health professionals. Our aim is to assess the prevalence of delirium in older people with cancer in an inpatient unit and the accuracy of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS).
Methods: This exploratory, cross-sectional study included people aged 65 years or older with a diagnosis of cancer and admitted to the medical oncology unit from June 2021 to December 2022. The diagnostic accuracy of CAM and MDAS was analyzed against the gold standard medical diagnosis based on DSM-5 criteria by two medical oncologists. The cutoff point for the MDAS was determined using a receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve.
Results: Among the 75 included patients (mean age 71.6 years, standard deviation 4.1; 52% males), the prevalence of delirium was 62.7%. The most prevalent types of cancer in patients with delirium were hematological and lung cancer. The scale with the highest diagnostic accuracy was the CAM, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 86%, followed by the MDAS, with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 30%. The presence of cognitive impairment hindered the detection of delirium.
Conclusions: The CAM scale was more accurate than the MDAS pre-existing cognitive impairment in our sample. Further studies are needed to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of delirium tools in older populations with cancer and in the presence of cognitive impairment.
Keywords: assessment; cancer; delirium; older; prevalence.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Validity and Reliability of the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale-Thai Version (MDAS-T) for Assessment of Delirium in Palliative Care Patients.Oncologist. 2020 Feb;25(2):e335-e340. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0399. Epub 2019 Nov 7. Oncologist. 2020. PMID: 32043769 Free PMC article.
-
Validating the Mandarin version of the Memorial delirium assessment scale in general medical hospital patients.Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2022 Mar;14(1):e12468. doi: 10.1111/appy.12468. Epub 2021 Apr 12. Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2022. PMID: 33847072
-
The Diagnostic Sensitivity of the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale-Spanish Version.J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 Mar;55(3):968-972. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.11.013. Epub 2017 Nov 16. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018. PMID: 29155289
-
Does this patient have delirium?: value of bedside instruments.JAMA. 2010 Aug 18;304(7):779-86. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1182. JAMA. 2010. PMID: 20716741 Review.
-
Accuracy of Delirium Screening Tools in Older People with Cancer-A Systematic Review.Cancers (Basel). 2023 May 17;15(10):2807. doi: 10.3390/cancers15102807. Cancers (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37345143 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Wu Y.C., Tseng P.T., Tu Y.K., Hsu C.Y., Liang C.S., Yeh T.C., Chen T.Y., Chu C.S., Matsuoka Y.J., Stubbs B., et al. Association of Delirium Response and Safety of Pharmacological Interventions for the Management and Prevention of Delirium: A Network Meta-Analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76:526–535. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4365. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical