Apar Kishor Ganti1, Xiaofei Wang2, Thomas E Stinchcombe2, Yinpeng Wang3, Jeffrey Bradley4, Harvey J Cohen2, Karen Kelly5, Rebecca Paulus6, Suresh S Ramalingam7, Everett E Vokes8, Herbert Pang9. 1. VA-Nebraska Western Iowa Health Care System; University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA. Electronic address: aganti@unmc.edu. 2. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 4. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. USA. 5. University of California Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA. USA. 6. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 7. Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 8. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. USA. 9. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are often not prescribed standard therapy. It is important to know which older patients would be candidates for aggressive therapy based on their prognosis, and to develop a model that can help determine prognosis. METHODS: Data on older patients (≥70 years) enrolled on 38 NCI cooperative group trials of advanced NSCLC from 1991 to 2011 were analyzed. Multivariable Cox PH model was built with a stepwise selection. We derived a prognostic score using the estimated Cox PH regression coefficient. We then calculated the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of survival in the testing set. RESULTS: The final analysis included 1467 patients, who were randomly divided into a training (n = 963) and a testing set (n = 504). The prognostic risk score was calculated as: 3 (if male) + 3 (if PS = 1) + 8 (if PS = 2) + 11 (if initial stage = IV) + 4 (if weight loss). Patients were classified into two prognostic groups: good (0-8) and poor (≥9). The median survival in the two groups in the testing set were 13.15 (95% CI, 10.82-15.91) and 8.52 months (95% CI, 7.5-9.63), respectively. The model had area under the 1-year and 2-year ROCs (0.6 and 0.65, respectively) that were higher than existing models. CONCLUSIONS: Male gender, poor performance status, distant metastases and recent weight loss predict for poor overall survival (OS) in older patients with advanced NSCLC. This study proposes a simple prognostic model for older adults with advanced NSCLC.
BACKGROUND: Older patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are often not prescribed standard therapy. It is important to know which older patients would be candidates for aggressive therapy based on their prognosis, and to develop a model that can help determine prognosis. METHODS: Data on older patients (≥70 years) enrolled on 38 NCI cooperative group trials of advanced NSCLC from 1991 to 2011 were analyzed. Multivariable Cox PH model was built with a stepwise selection. We derived a prognostic score using the estimated Cox PH regression coefficient. We then calculated the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of survival in the testing set. RESULTS: The final analysis included 1467 patients, who were randomly divided into a training (n = 963) and a testing set (n = 504). The prognostic risk score was calculated as: 3 (if male) + 3 (if PS = 1) + 8 (if PS = 2) + 11 (if initial stage = IV) + 4 (if weight loss). Patients were classified into two prognostic groups: good (0-8) and poor (≥9). The median survival in the two groups in the testing set were 13.15 (95% CI, 10.82-15.91) and 8.52 months (95% CI, 7.5-9.63), respectively. The model had area under the 1-year and 2-year ROCs (0.6 and 0.65, respectively) that were higher than existing models. CONCLUSIONS: Male gender, poor performance status, distant metastases and recent weight loss predict for poor overall survival (OS) in older patients with advanced NSCLC. This study proposes a simple prognostic model for older adults with advanced NSCLC.
Authors: Herbert H Pang; Xiaofei Wang; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Melisa L Wong; Perry Cheng; Apar Kishor Ganti; Daniel J Sargent; Ying Zhang; Chen Hu; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Mary W Redman; Judith B Manola; Richard L Schilsky; Harvey J Cohen; Jeffrey D Bradley; Alex A Adjei; David Gandara; Suresh S Ramalingam; Everett E Vokes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joy H Lewis; Meredith L Kilgore; Dana P Goldman; Edward L Trimble; Richard Kaplan; Michael J Montello; Michael G Housman; José J Escarce Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sumithra J Mandrekar; Steven E Schild; Shauna L Hillman; Katie L Allen; Randolph S Marks; James A Mailliard; James E Krook; Andrew W Maksymiuk; Kari Chansky; Karen Kelly; Alex A Adjei; James R Jett Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jean-Paul Sculier; Kari Chansky; John J Crowley; Jan Van Meerbeeck; Peter Goldstraw Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Kenneth L Kehl; Neeraj K Arora; Deborah Schrag; John Z Ayanian; Steven B Clauser; Carrie N Klabunde; Katherine L Kahn; Robert H Fletcher; Nancy L Keating Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Jane F Pendergast; Katherine L Kahn; Robert B Wallace; Daniela C Moga; David P Harrington; Catarina I Kiefe; Jane C Weeks; Dee W West; S Yousuf Zafar; Robert H Fletcher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-28 Impact factor: 44.544