A Al-Rashdan1, R Sutradhar2, N Nazeri-Rad3, C Yao3, L Barbera4. 1. Division of Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Calgary, Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Biostatistics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Calgary, Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: lisa.barbera@albertahealthservices.ca.
Abstract
AIMS: Performance status is an important prognostic tool in cancer. In oncology, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) measure is commonly used. Patient-reported functional status (PRFS) is an emerging method that allows patients to provide an estimate of their function; however, there is limited information about its prognostic significance. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive validity of functional status as reported by patients and physicians in relation to the observed survival after a new cancer diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based study using observational data of newly diagnosed patients in Ontario, Canada. We included patients who had both PRFS and ECOG recorded on the same day during an outpatient cancer clinic visit between March 2013 and March 2018. The dataset was randomly divided into 60% training and 40% validation cohorts. One-year survival was estimated by modelling clinical characteristics with PRFS, with ECOG, and alone. RESULTS: In total, 13 045 patients met the inclusion criteria. Covariates were similar at baseline for both training and validation datasets. PRFS and ECOG scores were statistically significant predictors of overall survival. Higher PRFS and ECOG scores were both associated with inferior survival, hazard ratio = 1.71 (P < 0.0001) and hazard ratio = 1.90 (P < 0.0001), respectively. Models that included either PRFS or ECOG scores outperformed the model with clinical characteristics only. C statistics were 0.836, 0.839 and 0.811, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PRFS adds to survival modelling and is equally predictive as the ECOG scale. PRFS may be used instead of ECOG in clinical or research settings for survival estimation.
AIMS: Performance status is an important prognostic tool in cancer. In oncology, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) measure is commonly used. Patient-reported functional status (PRFS) is an emerging method that allows patients to provide an estimate of their function; however, there is limited information about its prognostic significance. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive validity of functional status as reported by patients and physicians in relation to the observed survival after a new cancer diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based study using observational data of newly diagnosed patients in Ontario, Canada. We included patients who had both PRFS and ECOG recorded on the same day during an outpatientcancer clinic visit between March 2013 and March 2018. The dataset was randomly divided into 60% training and 40% validation cohorts. One-year survival was estimated by modelling clinical characteristics with PRFS, with ECOG, and alone. RESULTS: In total, 13 045 patients met the inclusion criteria. Covariates were similar at baseline for both training and validation datasets. PRFS and ECOG scores were statistically significant predictors of overall survival. Higher PRFS and ECOG scores were both associated with inferior survival, hazard ratio = 1.71 (P < 0.0001) and hazard ratio = 1.90 (P < 0.0001), respectively. Models that included either PRFS or ECOG scores outperformed the model with clinical characteristics only. C statistics were 0.836, 0.839 and 0.811, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PRFS adds to survival modelling and is equally predictive as the ECOG scale. PRFS may be used instead of ECOG in clinical or research settings for survival estimation.
Authors: Ethan Basch; Deborah Schrag; Sydney Henson; Jennifer Jansen; Brenda Ginos; Angela M Stover; Philip Carr; Patricia A Spears; Mattias Jonsson; Allison M Deal; Antonia V Bennett; Gita Thanarajasingam; Lauren J Rogak; Bryce B Reeve; Claire Snyder; Deborah Bruner; David Cella; Lisa A Kottschade; Jane Perlmutter; Cindy Geoghegan; Cleo A Samuel-Ryals; Barbara Given; Gina L Mazza; Robert Miller; Jon F Strasser; Dylan M Zylla; Anna Weiss; Victoria S Blinder; Amylou C Dueck Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Martin Eichler; Susanne Singer; Leopold Hentschel; Stephan Richter; Peter Hohenberger; Bernd Kasper; Dimosthenis Andreou; Daniel Pink; Jens Jakob; Robert Grützmann; Stephen Fung; Eva Wardelmann; Karin Arndt; Vitali Heidt; Sergio Armando Zapata Bonilla; Verena I Gaidzik; Helena K Jambor; Jürgen Weitz; Klaus-Dieter Schaser; Martin Bornhäuser; Jochen Schmitt; Markus K Schuler Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: Hsien Seow; Peter Tanuseputro; Lisa Barbera; Craig C Earle; Dawn M Guthrie; Sarina R Isenberg; Rosalyn A Juergens; Jeffrey Myers; Melissa Brouwers; Semra Tibebu; Rinku Sutradhar Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 4.762