PURPOSE: A four-parameter score has been identified as associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced cancer with an estimated survival inferior to 6 months. Here, we tested its prognostic value for OS in patients who had received more than two lines of systemic therapy. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who were going to receive a third or more therapeutic line outside classical clinical guidelines. The four parameters (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, serum LDH, and serum albumin) were collected at baseline, allowing to calculate the score, which sorted the patients in three groups, A, B, and C (low, intermediate, and high score, respectively). We then searched for correlations between this grouping and clinicopathological features particularly OS. RESULTS: From August 2013 to March 2014, 65 patients were enrolled and corresponded after determining their score to 26 patients in group A, 30 in B, and 9 in C. The median OS of the cohort was 4.4 months, and the 6-month OS was 42%. Overall survival was different between the three groups, with respective 6-month OS equal to 80% in group A, 17% in group B, and 0% in group C and respective median OS of 9, 2.3, and 1.6 months. Such prognostic value persisted in multivariate analysis. Similar OS differences were observed in patients with PS ≤2. CONCLUSION: This simple scoring should help oncologists identify which patients, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, might benefit from best supportive care alone.
PURPOSE: A four-parameter score has been identified as associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced cancer with an estimated survival inferior to 6 months. Here, we tested its prognostic value for OS in patients who had received more than two lines of systemic therapy. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who were going to receive a third or more therapeutic line outside classical clinical guidelines. The four parameters (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, serum LDH, and serum albumin) were collected at baseline, allowing to calculate the score, which sorted the patients in three groups, A, B, and C (low, intermediate, and high score, respectively). We then searched for correlations between this grouping and clinicopathological features particularly OS. RESULTS: From August 2013 to March 2014, 65 patients were enrolled and corresponded after determining their score to 26 patients in group A, 30 in B, and 9 in C. The median OS of the cohort was 4.4 months, and the 6-month OS was 42%. Overall survival was different between the three groups, with respective 6-month OS equal to 80% in group A, 17% in group B, and 0% in group C and respective median OS of 9, 2.3, and 1.6 months. Such prognostic value persisted in multivariate analysis. Similar OS differences were observed in patients with PS ≤2. CONCLUSION: This simple scoring should help oncologists identify which patients, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, might benefit from best supportive care alone.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Chemotherapy; End of life; Palliative care; Prognostic score; Supportive care
Authors: Javier Cortes; Joyce O'Shaughnessy; David Loesch; Joanne L Blum; Linda T Vahdat; Katarina Petrakova; Philippe Chollet; Alexey Manikas; Veronique Diéras; Thierry Delozier; Vladimir Vladimirov; Fatima Cardoso; Han Koh; Philippe Bougnoux; Corina E Dutcus; Seth Seegobin; Denis Mir; Nicole Meneses; Jantien Wanders; Chris Twelves Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jennifer W Mack; Anne Walling; Sydney Dy; Anna Liza M Antonio; John Adams; Nancy L Keating; Diana Tisnado Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245