4.7 Article

Montreal prognostic score: estimating survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer using clinical biomarkers

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 109, Issue 8, Pages 2066-2071

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.515

Keywords

lung cancer; lactate dehydrogenase; C-reactive protein; prognostic; survival

Categories

Funding

  1. Terry Fox Research Institute
  2. Canadian Institute for Health Research
  3. Mona Zavalkoff Fund for Pulmonary Oncology
  4. Fonds de la Recherche Quebec Sante

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: For evidence-based medical practice, well-defined risk scoring systems are essential to identify patients with a poor prognosis. The objective of this study was to develop a prognostic score, the Montreal prognostic score (MPS), to improve prognostication of patients with incurable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in everyday practice. Methods: A training cohort (TC) and a confirmatory cohort (CC) of newly diagnosed patients with NSCLC planning to receive chemotherapy were used to develop the MPS. Stage and clinically available biomarkers were entered into a Cox model and risk weights were estimated. C-statistics were used to test the accuracy. Results: The TC consisted of 258 patients and the CC consisted of 433 patients. Montreal prognostic score classified patients into three distinct groups with median survivals of 2.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8, 4.2), 8.2 months (95% CI: 7.0, 9.4) and 18.2 months (95% CI: 14.0, 27.5), respectively (log-rank, P<0.001). Overall, the C-statistics were 0.691 (95% CI: 0.685, 0.697) for the TC and 0.665 (95% CI: 0.661, 0.670) for the CC. Conclusion: The MPS, by classifying patients into three well-defined prognostic groups, provides valuable information, which physicians could use to better inform their patients about treatment options, especially the best timing to involve palliative care teams.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available