Comparison of Four Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Advanced Gastric and Esophageal Cancer

Abstract

Background Prognostic scores that can identify patients at risk for early death are needed to aid treatment decision-making and patient selection for clinical trials. We compared the accuracy of four scores to predict early death (within 90 days) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer. Methods Advanced GE cancer patients receiving first-line systemic therapy were included. Prognostic risks were calculated using: Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm-Score), and MD Anderson Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (MDA-ICI) scores. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze associations between prognostic scores and OS. The predictive discrimination was estimated using Harrell’s c-index. Predictive ability for early death was measured using time-dependent AUCs. Results In total, 451 patients with metastatic GE cancer were included. High risk patients had shorter OS for all scores (RMH high- vs. low–risk median OS 7.9 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001; MDACC 6.8 vs. 11.9 months P < .001; GRIm-Score 5.3 vs. 13 months, P < .001; MDA-ICI 8.2 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, each prognostic score was significantly associated with OS. The GRIm-Score had the highest predictive discrimination and predictive ability for early death. Conclusions The GRIm-Score had the highest accuracy in predicting early death and OS. Clinicians may use this score to identify patients at higher risk of early death to guide treatment decisions including clinical trial enrolment. This score could also be used as a stratification factor in future clinical trial designs.

Have clinical research and related recommendations been consistent enough for informing the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer patients with anticancer drugs? A critical historical review

“…Moreover, the 11 assessed guidelines appear to be too ambiguous regarding the bene ts and limitations of active therapies in advanced EC patients and the alternative use of best supportive care. The 2016 ASCO guideline makes an explicit recommendation on the use of supportive care only in selected cases, based on the assumption that patients with low performance scores are unlikely to tolerate or bene t from aggressive treatment [75,76]. ESMO guidelines, instead, acknowledge that treatment is palliative and chemotherapy may be an option for selected patients.…”