4.7 Article

A new, simple and objective prognostic score for phase I cancer patients

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 47, Issue 8, Pages 1152-1160

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.028

Keywords

Cancer; Phase I; Prognostic factors; Clinical outcome; Age

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To ensure safety and optimise efficacy, careful patient selection for participation in oncologic phase I trials is warranted. Therefore, we did a validation study on existing phase I prognostic scores, and subsequently aimed to make an even more simple prognostic score. Patients and methods: We retrospectively analysed characteristics and clinical outcome of 122 patients who participated in eight different phase I studies in our centre. A literature search was performed for existing prognostic scores which were validated in our dataset. Additionally, a simple prognostic score able to predict overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), 90-d mortality and duration of participation was developed. Results: In our population the median OS was 31 (range 4-241) weeks, median PFS was 10 (range 3-119) weeks. Thirteen patients (11%) died within 90-d and median participation duration was 11 (range 1-119) weeks. Two out of five existing prognostic scores could be validated in this dataset for OS. Based on multivariate analyses a new, objective and simple score, consisting of LDH, sodium and haemoglobin, was tested. High score (2-3 points) compared to low score (0-1) significantly predicted OS (HR 1.878, p = 0.003), PFS (HR 1.156, p = 0.038), participation duration (HR 1.858, p = 0.004) and 90-d mortality (OR 4.200, p = 0.022). Conclusion: We propose a new prognostic model, using LDH, sodium and haemoglobin, helpful to predict OS, PFS, participation duration and 90-d mortality. Larger multicentre studies are needed to validate this score. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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