H Bourgeois1,2, F Grudé2, P Solal-Céligny1, O Dupuis1, E Voog1, G Ganem1, F Denis1, M Zinger1, L Juhel-Voog1, C Lafond1, P Maillart3, O Capitain3, R Delva3, P Soulié3, S Abadie-Lacourtoisie3, V Guérin-Meyer3, M E Morin-Meschin3, J M Commer3, A Gangler3, B d'Aillières3, A Zannetti3, E Bourbouloux4, D Berton-Rigault4, S Lebouvier-Sadot4, M Kaassis5, J Baudon5, Y H Lam5, A Bizieux6, M Marcq6, J Edeline7, F Le Du7, C Lefeuvre7, P Deguiral8, V Delecroix8, E Blot9, J Egreteau10, M J Goudier10, R Lamy10, M Ferec11, X Artignan12, S Corbinais13, H Morel13, A C Hardy-Bessard14, C Alleaume15, E Naudeix16, O Cojocarasu17, J P Metges2, C Riché2, E Gamelin18, D Déniel-Lagadec2, F Marhuenda2, P Ingrand19, J Y Douillard2,4. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Jean Bernard/Clinique Victor Hugo, Le Mans. 2. Observatory of Cancer Bretagne Pays de la Loire, Siège Médical Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Site Paul Papin, Angers. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Site Paul Papin, Angers. 4. Medical Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Site René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain. 5. Medical Oncology Department, C.H. Cholet, Cholet. 6. Medical Oncology Department, C.H.D. Vendée, La Roche Sur Yon. 7. Medical Oncology Department, C.R.L.C.C. Eugène Marquis, Rennes. 8. Medical Oncology Department, Clinique Mutualiste de l'Estuaire, Cité Sanitaire, Saint-Nazaire. 9. Oncology Centre Saint Yves, Hôpital Privé Océane, Vannes. 10. Medical Oncology Department, C.H.B.S., Lorient. 11. Medical Oncology Department, C.H. Morlaix. 12. Department of Medical Oncology and Radiotherapy, C.H.P., Saint-Gregoire. 13. Medical Oncology Department, C.H. Broussais, Saint-Malo. 14. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Cario-HPCA, Plerin Sur Mer. 15. Medical Oncology Department, C.H. Yves le Foll, Saint-Brieuc. 16. Medical Oncology Department, C.H. Fougeres. 17. Medical Oncology Department, C.H. Le Mans. 18. Former coordinator of Observatory of Cancer Bretagne Pays de la Loire, Siège Médical Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, site Paul Papin, Angers. 19. INSERM CIC 1402, Faculté de Médecine et Pharmacie, CHU et Université Poitiers, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2008, a study of the characteristics of hospitalised patients led to the development of a prognostic tool that distinguished three populations with significantly different 2-month survival rates. The goal of our study aimed at validating prospectively this prognostic tool in outpatients treated for cancer in terminal stage, based on four factors: performance status (ECOG) (PS), number of metastatic sites, serum albumin and lactate dehydrogenase. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PRONOPALL is a multicentre study of current care. About 302 adult patients who met one or more of the following criteria: life expectancy under 6 months, performance status ≥ 2 and disease progression during the previous chemotherapy regimen were included across 16 institutions between October 2009 and October 2010. Afterwards, in order to validate the prognostic tool, the score was ciphered and correlated to patient survival. RESULTS: Totally 262 patients (87%) were evaluable (27 patients excluded and 13 unknown score). Median age was 66 years [37-88], and women accounted for 59%. ECOG PS 0-1 (46%), PS 2 (37%) and PS 3-4 (17%). The primary tumours were: breast (29%), colorectal (28%), lung (13%), pancreas (12%), ovary (11%) and other (8%). About 32% of patients presented one metastatic site, 35% had two and 31% had more than two. The median lactate dehydrogenase level was 398 IU/l [118-4314]; median serum albumin was 35 g/l [13-54]. According to the PRONOPALL prognostic tool, the 2-month survival rate was 92% and the median survival rate was 301 days [209-348] for the 130 patients in population C, 66% and 79 days [71-114] for the 111 patients in population B, and 24% and 35 days for [14-56] the 21 patients in population A. These three populations survival were statistically different (P <0.0001). CONCLUSION: PRONOPALL study confirms the three prognostic profiles defined by the combination of four factors. This PRONOPALL score is a useful decision-making tool in daily practice.
BACKGROUND: In 2008, a study of the characteristics of hospitalised patients led to the development of a prognostic tool that distinguished three populations with significantly different 2-month survival rates. The goal of our study aimed at validating prospectively this prognostic tool in outpatients treated for cancer in terminal stage, based on four factors: performance status (ECOG) (PS), number of metastatic sites, serum albumin and lactate dehydrogenase. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PRONOPALL is a multicentre study of current care. About 302 adult patients who met one or more of the following criteria: life expectancy under 6 months, performance status ≥ 2 and disease progression during the previous chemotherapy regimen were included across 16 institutions between October 2009 and October 2010. Afterwards, in order to validate the prognostic tool, the score was ciphered and correlated to patient survival. RESULTS: Totally 262 patients (87%) were evaluable (27 patients excluded and 13 unknown score). Median age was 66 years [37-88], and women accounted for 59%. ECOG PS 0-1 (46%), PS 2 (37%) and PS 3-4 (17%). The primary tumours were: breast (29%), colorectal (28%), lung (13%), pancreas (12%), ovary (11%) and other (8%). About 32% of patients presented one metastatic site, 35% had two and 31% had more than two. The median lactate dehydrogenase level was 398 IU/l [118-4314]; median serum albumin was 35 g/l [13-54]. According to the PRONOPALL prognostic tool, the 2-month survival rate was 92% and the median survival rate was 301 days [209-348] for the 130 patients in population C, 66% and 79 days [71-114] for the 111 patients in population B, and 24% and 35 days for [14-56] the 21 patients in population A. These three populations survival were statistically different (P <0.0001). CONCLUSION: PRONOPALL study confirms the three prognostic profiles defined by the combination of four factors. This PRONOPALL score is a useful decision-making tool in daily practice.
Authors: David Hui; Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Egidio G Del Fabbro; Christopher Steer; Jane Naberhuis; Marianne van de Wetering; Paz Fernández-Ortega; Tatsuya Morita; Sang-Yeon Suh; Eduardo Bruera; Masanori Mori Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva; Naitielle de Paula Pântano; Daniel D'Almeida Preto; Cleyton Zanardo de Oliveira; Sriram Yennurajalingam; David Hui; Eduardo Bruera Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Yu Jung Kim; Yusuke Hiratsuka; Sang-Yeon Suh; Beodeul Kang; Si Won Lee; Hong-Yup Ahn; Koung Jin Suh; Ji-Won Kim; Se Hyun Kim; Jin Won Kim; Keun-Wook Lee; Jee Hyun Kim; Jong Seok Lee Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 5.036