Diagnostic Accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic Score in Hospitalized Patients With Advanced Cancer

Glare, Paul; Eychmueller, Steffen; McMahon, Patrick J.

doi:10.1200/jco.2004.12.056

Cited by 146 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings highlight a potential role for the mGPS (objective measure) in combination with performance status (subjective measure), with these acting synergistically, predicting survival effectively. This new approach would also enable measures of systemic inflammation to be a part of the routine, clinical prediction of survival in patients with advanced cancer (7,8). A prognostic tool combining mGPS and performance status could guide clinicians in the appropriate cancer treatment for their patients, and further work examining this in practice would be of interest.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic Factors in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Comparison of Clinicopathological Factors and the Development of an Inflammation-Based Prognostic System

Laird

Kaasa

McMillan

et al. 2013

Clinical Cancer Research

181

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In advanced cancer, oncological treatment is influenced by performance status (PS); however, this has limitations. Biomarkers of systemic inflammation may have prognostic value in advanced cancer. The study compares key factors in prognosis (performance status, patient-reported outcomes; PRO) with an inflammation-based score (Glasgow Prognostic Score, mGPS). A new method of prognosis in advanced cancer (combining performance status and mGPS) is tested and then validated.Experimental Design: Two international biobanks of patients with advanced cancer were analyzed. Key prognostic factors [performance status, PROs (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30), and mGPS (using C-reactive protein and albumin concentrations)] were examined. The relationship between these and survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods, in a test sample before independent validation.Results: Data were available on 1,825 patients (test) and 631 patients (validation). Median survival ranged from 3.2 months (test) to 7.03 months (validation). On multivariate analysis, performance status (HR 1.62-2.77) and mGPS (HR 1.51-2.27) were independently associated with, and were the strongest predictors of survival (P < 0.01). Survival at 3 months varied from 82% (mGPS 0) to 39% (mGPS 2) and from 75% (performance status 0-1) to 14% (performance status 4). When used together, survival ranged from 88% (mGPS 0, PS 0-1) to 10% (mGPS 2, performance status 4), P < 0.001.Conclusion: A systemic inflammation-based score, mGPS, and performance status predict survival in advanced cancer. The mGPS is similar to performance status in terms of prognostic power. Used together, performance status and mGPS act synergistically improving prognostic accuracy. This new method may be of considerable value in the management of patients with advanced cancer.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic Factors in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Comparison of Clinicopathological Factors and the Development of an Inflammation-Based Prognostic System

Laird

Kaasa

McMillan

et al. 2013

Clinical Cancer Research

181

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies have shown that palliative chemotherapy have played significant role in improving patients with advanced cancer quality of life (QoL) or prolonging good QoL for reasonable time (Simmonds, 2000). Surgical intervention for spinal metastases and pathological fractures also proved to improve patients' pain and bring positive impact on overall quality of life to patients with advanced cancer at an acceptable risks (Glare et al, 2004). Symptoms management are known to be achieved by short course radiotherapy for patients with advanced incurable head and neck cancer (Mohanti et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observational Study on Patient's Satisfactions and Quality of Life (QoL) Among Cancer Patients Receiving Treatment with Palliative Care Intent in a Tertiary Hospital in Malaysia

Puteh¹,

Fuad²,

Hayati³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of palliative treatment for cancer patients has been to maintain, if not improve, the quality of life (QoL). There is a lack of local data on satisfaction and QoL among cancer patients receiving palliative treatment in Malaysia. This study covers patients with incurable, progressive cancer disease receiving palliative treatment in a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, comparing the different components of QoL and correlations with patient satisfaction. A cross-sectional survey using Malay validated SF36 QoL and PSQ-18 (Short Form) tools was carried out between July 2012 -January 2013 with 120 cancer patients receiving palliative treatment, recruited into the study after informed consent using convenient sampling. Results showed that highest satisfaction were observed in Communication Aspect (50.6±9.07) and the least in General Satisfaction (26.4±5.90). The Mental Component Summary (44.9±6.84) scored higher when compared with the Physical Component Summary (42.2±7.91). In this study, we found that patient satisfaction was strongly associated with good quality of life among cancer patients from a general satisfaction aspect (r=0.232). A poor significant negative correlation was found in Physical Component (technical quality, r=-0.312). The Mental Component showed there was a poor negative correlation between time spent with doctor (r=-0.192) and accessibility, (r=-0.279). We found that feeling at peace and having a sense of meaning in life were more important to patients than being active or achieving good physical comfort. More studyis needed to investigate patients who score poorly on physical and mental component aspects to understand their needs in order to achieve better cancer care.

show abstract

“…The PaP score contains five parameters (symptom, PS, inflammation, immunity and physician's survival prediction) associated with cancer patient survival. Findings of previous studies have indicated that the PaP score may accurately estimate pre-terminal patient survival (15)(16)(17). Using the PaP score in 44 patients with non-resectable advanced gastric cancer, the correlation between PaP score groups and chemotherapeutic regimens was investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usefulness of palliative prognostic score in the treatment of patients with non-resectable gastric cancer

Ikeguchi

Kader

Yoshimoto

et al. 2013

Molecular and Clinical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the palliative prognostic (PaP) score in patients with non-resectable advanced gastric cancer. The PaP score was calculated prior to each course of chemotherapy in 44 consecutive patients with non-resectable advanced gastric cancer between 2003 and 2010 at the Tottori University Hospital, Yonago, Japan. The prognosis was evaluated according to the PaP score and the different chemotherapeutic agents. The median survival time (MST) was 10 months. The PaP score classified the heterogeneous patient sample into three isoprognostic groups with regard to the possibility of a 1-month survival period, with 28 patients in group A (>70% chance), 12 in group B (30-70% chance) and 4 in group C (<30% chance). The MST of the three groups was 11, 3 and 1 months for group A, B and C, respectively. In group A, chemotherapeutic regimens did not affect patient survival, although the docetaxel regimen prolonged survival of patients in group B. In conclusion, the PaP score may be useful in selecting the best chemotherapeutic regimen in patients with non-resectable gastric cancer.

show abstract

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic Score in Hospitalized Patients With Advanced Cancer

Abstract: When oncologists' survival estimates are used, the PaP score is able to identify accurately three isoprognostic patient groups, irrespective of the cancer type. The PaP score may help reduce the uncertainty of formulating a prognosis in patients with advanced cancer.

Cited by 146 publications

References 26 publications

Prognostic Factors in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Comparison of Clinicopathological Factors and the Development of an Inflammation-Based Prognostic System

Prognostic Factors in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Comparison of Clinicopathological Factors and the Development of an Inflammation-Based Prognostic System

Observational Study on Patient's Satisfactions and Quality of Life (QoL) Among Cancer Patients Receiving Treatment with Palliative Care Intent in a Tertiary Hospital in Malaysia

Usefulness of palliative prognostic score in the treatment of patients with non-resectable gastric cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About