Literature DB >> 23938289

Prognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer: a comparison of clinicopathological factors and the development of an inflammation-based prognostic system.

Barry J Laird1, Stein Kaasa, Donald C McMillan, Marie T Fallon, Marianne J Hjermstad, Peter Fayers, Pal Klepstad.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In advanced cancer, oncological treatment is influenced by performance status (PS); however, this has limitations. Biomarkers of systemic inflammation may have prognostic value in advanced cancer. The study compares key factors in prognosis (performance status, patient-reported outcomes; PRO) with an inflammation-based score (Glasgow Prognostic Score, mGPS). A new method of prognosis in advanced cancer (combining performance status and mGPS) is tested and then validated. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: Two international biobanks of patients with advanced cancer were analyzed. Key prognostic factors [performance status, PROs (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30), and mGPS (using C-reactive protein and albumin concentrations)] were examined. The relationship between these and survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods, in a test sample before independent validation.
RESULTS: Data were available on 1,825 patients (test) and 631 patients (validation). Median survival ranged from 3.2 months (test) to 7.03 months (validation). On multivariate analysis, performance status (HR 1.62-2.77) and mGPS (HR 1.51-2.27) were independently associated with, and were the strongest predictors of survival (P < 0.01). Survival at 3 months varied from 82% (mGPS 0) to 39% (mGPS 2) and from 75% (performance status 0-1) to 14% (performance status 4). When used together, survival ranged from 88% (mGPS 0, PS 0-1) to 10% (mGPS 2, performance status 4), P < 0.001.
CONCLUSION: A systemic inflammation-based score, mGPS, and performance status predict survival in advanced cancer. The mGPS is similar to performance status in terms of prognostic power. Used together, performance status and mGPS act synergistically improving prognostic accuracy. This new method may be of considerable value in the management of patients with advanced cancer. ©2013 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23938289     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  55 in total

1.  Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Differential Association With Performance Status and Systemic Inflammatory Response.

Authors:  Barry J A Laird; Marie Fallon; Marianne J Hjermstad; Sharon Tuck; Stein Kaasa; Pål Klepstad; Donald C McMillan
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Prognostic effects of preoperative obstructive pneumonitis or atelectasis and comparison with tumor size in non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Zhaofei Pang; Nan Ding; Wei Dong; Yang Ni; Tiehong Zhang; Xiao Qu; Jiajun Du; Qi Liu
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  A systemic inflammation-based prognostic scores (mGPS) predicts overall survival of patients with small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Ting Zhou; Shaodong Hong; Zhihuang Hu; Xue Hou; Yan Huang; Hongyun Zhao; Wenhua Liang; Yuanyuan Zhao; Wenfeng Fang; Xuan Wu; Tao Qin; Li Zhang
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-09-26

Review 4.  The lung cancer nurse role in the management of paraneoplastic syndromes in lung cancer.

Authors:  John White
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2016-06

5.  Is there a sex effect in colon cancer? Disease characteristics, management, and outcomes in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  J S Quirt; S Nanji; X Wei; J A Flemming; C M Booth
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  High pretreatment serum C-reactive protein level predicts a poor prognosis for combined small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Na Shao; Qiling Cai
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2015-05-31

7.  The TEACHH model to predict life expectancy in patients presenting for palliative spine radiotherapy: external validation and comparison with alternate models.

Authors:  Maryam Dosani; Scott Tyldesley; Brendan Bakos; Jeremy Hamm; Tim Kong; Sarah Lucas; Jordan Wong; Mitchell Liu; Sarah Hamilton
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 8.  Inflammation-based factors and prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Kiyoshi Maeda; Masatusne Shibutani; Hiroshi Otani; Hisashi Nagahara; Tetsuro Ikeya; Yasuhito Iseki; Hiroaki Tanaka; Kazuya Muguruma; Kosei Hirakawa
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-08-15

9.  An analytical framework for delirium research in palliative care settings: integrated epidemiologic, clinician-researcher, and knowledge user perspectives.

Authors:  Peter G Lawlor; Daniel H J Davis; Mohammed Ansari; Annmarie Hosie; Salmaan Kanji; Franco Momoli; Shirley H Bush; Sharon Watanabe; David C Currow; Bruno Gagnon; Meera Agar; Eduardo Bruera; David J Meagher; Sophia E J A de Rooij; Dimitrios Adamis; Augusto Caraceni; Katie Marchington; David J Stewart
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2014-04-12       Impact factor: 3.612

10.  Co-relation of overall survival with peripheral blood-based inflammatory biomarkers in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer treated with anti-programmed cell death-1 therapy: results from a single institutional database.

Authors:  Abdul Rafeh Naqash; Chipman Robert Geoffrey Stroud; Muhammad Umer Butt; Grace K Dy; Aparna Hegde; Mahvish Muzaffar; Li V Yang; Maida Hafiz; Cynthia R Cherry; Paul R Walker
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 4.089

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.