A scoring system to guide the decision for a new systemic treatment after at least two lines of palliative chemotherapy for metastatic cancers: a prospective study
A four-parameter score has been identified as associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced cancer with an estimated survival inferior to 6 months. Here, we tested its prognostic value for OS in patients who had received more than two lines of systemic therapy.
We prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who were going to receive a third or more therapeutic line outside classical clinical guidelines. The four parameters (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, serum LDH, and serum albumin) were collected at baseline, allowing to calculate the score, which sorted the patients in three groups, A, B, and C (low, intermediate, and high score, respectively). We then searched for correlations between this grouping and clinicopathological features particularly OS.
From August 2013 to March 2014, 65 patients were enrolled and corresponded after determining their score to 26 patients in group A, 30 in B, and 9 in C. The median OS of the cohort was 4.4 months, and the 6-month OS was 42%. Overall survival was different between the three groups, with respective 6-month OS equal to 80% in group A, 17% in group B, and 0% in group C and respective median OS of 9, 2.3, and 1.6 months. Such prognostic value persisted in multivariate analysis. Similar OS differences were observed in patients with PS ≤2.
This simple scoring should help oncologists identify which patients, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, might benefit from best supportive care alone.
KeywordsCancer End of life Chemotherapy Prognostic score Supportive care Palliative care
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 6.Institute of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (US) National Cancer Policy Board (1999) Ensuring quality cancer care. National Academies Press (US), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 11.Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M (1996) Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer 1990 32A:1135–1141Google Scholar
- 12.Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.O’Mahony S, Nathan S, Mohajer R et al (2016) Survival prediction in ambulatory patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer using the palliative performance scale, ECOG, and lung cancer symptom scale. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 33:374–380. doi: 10.1177/1049909115570707 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.de Kock I, Mirhosseini M, Lau F et al (2013) Conversion of Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG) to Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), and the interchangeability of PPS and KPS in prognostic tools. J Palliat Care 29:163–169PubMedGoogle Scholar