4.7 Article

Prognostic Importance of Pretransplant Functional Capacity After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 1290-1297

出版社

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0200

关键词

Functional capacity; Prognosis; Exercise; Cancer; Survival; Risk stratification

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute
  2. AKTIV Against Cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognostic importance of functional capacity in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for hematological malignancies. Patients and Methods. Using a retrospective design, 407 patients completed a 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) test to assess functional capacity before HCT; 193 (47%) completed a 6MWD test after hospital discharge. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) and overall survival (OS) according to the 6MWD category (<400mvs.>= 400 m) and the change in 6MWD (before HCT to discharge) with or without adjustment for Karnofsky performance status (KPS), age, and other prognostic markers. Results. Compared with <400 m, the unadjusted hazard ratio for NRM was 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.96) for a 6MWD >= 400 m. A 6MWD of >= 400 m provided incremental information on the prediction of NRM with adjustment for age (p = .032) but not KPS alone (p = .062) or adjustment for other prognostic markers (p = .099). A significant association was found between the 6MWD and OS (p = .027). A 6MWD of >= 400 m provided incremental information on the prediction of OS with adjustment for age (p = .032) but not for other prognostic markers (p > .05 for all). Patients presenting with a pre-HCT 6MWD of <400 m and experiencing a decline in 6MWD had the highest risk of NRM. Conclusion. The 6MWD is a significant univariate predictor of clinical outcomes but did not provide prognostic information beyond that of traditional prognostic markers in HCT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据