8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The NEAT Predictive Model for Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          We previously developed a model to more accurately predict life expectancy for stage IV cancer patients referred to radiation oncology. The goals of this study are to validate this model and to compare competing published models.

          Materials and Methods

          From May 2012 to March 2015, 280 consecutive patientswith stage IV cancerwere prospectively evaluated by a single radiation oncologist. Patients were separated into training, validation and combined sets. TheNEAT model evaluated number of active tumors (“N”), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (“E”), albumin (“A”) and primary tumor site (“T”). The Odette Cancer Center model validated performance status, bone only metastases and primary tumor site. The Harvard TEACHH model investigated primary tumor type, performance status, age, prior chemotherapy courses, liver metastases, and hospitalization within 3 months. Cox multivariable analyses and logisticalregressionwere utilized to compare model performance.

          Results

          Number of active tumors, performance status, albumin, primary tumor site, prior hospitalizationwithin the last 3 months, and liver metastases predicted overall survival on uinvariate and multivariable analysis (p < 0.05 for all). The NEAT model separated patients into four prognostic groups with median survivals of 24.9, 14.8, 4.0, and 1.2 months, respectively (p < 0.001). The NEAT model had a C-index of 0.76 with a Nagelkerke’s R2 of 0.54 suggesting good discrimination, calibration and total performance compared to competing prognostic models.

          Conclusion

          The NEAT model warrants further investigation as a clinically useful approach to predict survival in patients with stage IV cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnosis-specific prognostic factors, indexes, and treatment outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a multi-institutional analysis of 4,259 patients.

          Controversy endures regarding the optimal treatment of patients with brain metastases (BMs). Debate persists, despite many randomized trials, perhaps because BM patients are a heterogeneous population. The purpose of the present study was to identify significant diagnosis-specific prognostic factors and indexes (Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment [DS-GPA]). A retrospective database of 5,067 patients treated for BMs between 1985 and 2007 was generated from 11 institutions. After exclusion of the patients with recurrent BMs or incomplete data, 4,259 patients with newly diagnosed BMs remained eligible for analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the prognostic factors and outcomes by primary site and treatment were performed. The significant prognostic factors were determined and used to define the DS-GPA prognostic indexes. The DS-GPA scores were calculated and correlated with the outcomes, stratified by diagnosis and treatment. The significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis. For non-small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer, the significant prognostic factors were Karnofsky performance status, age, presence of extracranial metastases, and number of BMs, confirming the original GPA for these diagnoses. For melanoma and renal cell cancer, the significant prognostic factors were Karnofsky performance status and the number of BMs. For breast and gastrointestinal cancer, the only significant prognostic factor was the Karnofsky performance status. Two new DS-GPA indexes were thus designed for breast/gastrointestinal cancer and melanoma/renal cell carcinoma. The median survival by GPA score, diagnosis, and treatment were determined. The prognostic factors for BM patients varied by diagnosis. The original GPA was confirmed for non-small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer. New DS-GPA indexes were determined for other histologic types and correlated with the outcome, and statistical separation between the groups was confirmed. These data should be considered in the design of future randomized trials and in clinical decision-making. (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial

            Summary Background Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and dexamethasone are widely used to treat brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although there have been no randomised clinical trials showing that WBRT improves either quality of life or overall survival. Even after treatment with WBRT, the prognosis of this patient group is poor. We aimed to establish whether WBRT could be omitted without a significant effect on survival or quality of life. Methods The Quality of Life after Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) study is a non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised trial done at 69 UK and three Australian centres. NSCLC patients with brain metastases unsuitable for surgical resection or stereotactic radiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to optimal supportive care (OSC) including dexamethasone plus WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) or OSC alone (including dexamethasone). The dose of dexamethasone was determined by the patients' symptoms and titrated downwards if symptoms improved. Allocation to treatment group was done by a phone call from the hospital to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London using a minimisation programme with a random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of brain metastases, and the status of primary lung cancer. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYs were generated from overall survival and patients' weekly completion of the EQ-5D questionnaire. Treatment with OSC alone was considered non-inferior if it was no more than 7 QALY days worse than treatment with WBRT plus OSC, which required 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level). Analysis was done by intention to treat for all randomly assigned patients. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN3826061. Findings Between March 2, 2007, and Aug 29, 2014, 538 patients were recruited from 69 UK and three Australian centres, and were randomly assigned to receive either OSC plus WBRT (269) or OSC alone (269). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, and the median age of participants was 66 years (range 38–85). Significantly more episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp were reported while patients were receiving WBRT, although there was no evidence of a difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups. There was no evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·90–1·26), overall quality of life, or dexamethasone use between the two groups. The difference between the mean QALYs was 4·7 days (46·4 QALY days for the OSC plus WBRT group vs 41·7 QALY days for the OSC group), with two-sided 90% CI of −12·7 to 3·3. Interpretation Although the primary outcome measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small difference in QALYs and the absence of a difference in survival and quality of life between the two groups suggests that WBRT provides little additional clinically significant benefit for this patient group. Funding Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              End-of-life care discussions among patients with advanced cancer: a cohort study.

              National guidelines recommend that physicians discuss end-of-life (EOL) care planning with patients with cancer whose life expectancy is less than 1 year. To evaluate the incidence of EOL care discussions for patients with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer and where, when, and with whom these discussions take place. Prospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer from 2003 to 2005. Participants lived in Northern California, Los Angeles County, North Carolina, Iowa, or Alabama or received care in 1 of 5 large HMOs or 1 of 15 Veterans Health Administration sites. 2155 patients with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer. End-of-life care discussions reported in patient and surrogate interviews or documented in medical records through 15 months after diagnosis. 73% of patients had EOL care discussions identified by at least 1 source. Among the 1470 patients who died during follow-up, 87% had EOL care discussions, compared with 41% of the 685 patients who were alive at the end of follow-up. Of the 1081 first EOL care discussions documented in records, 55% occurred in the hospital. Oncologists documented EOL care discussions with only 27% of their patients. Among 959 patients with documented EOL care discussions who died during follow-up, discussions took place a median of 33 days before death. The depth and quality of EOL care discussions was not evaluated. Much of the information about discussions came from surrogates of patients who died before baseline interviews could be obtained. Although most patients with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer discuss EOL care planning with physicians before death, many discussions occur during acute hospital care, with providers other than oncologists, and late in the course of illness. National Cancer Institute and Department of Veterans Affairs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cancer Res Treat
                Cancer Res Treat
                CRT
                Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association
                Korean Cancer Association
                1598-2998
                2005-9256
                October 2018
                24 January 2018
                : 50
                : 4
                : 1433-1443
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA
                [2 ]New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY, USA
                [3 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
                [4 ]Divisions of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA
                [5 ]Divisions of Supportive and Palliative Care, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Amanda Zucker, BA Department of Radiation Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, 1000 Montauk Highway, West Islip, NY 11795, USA Tel: 1-631-376-4047 Fax: 1-631-376-3392 E-mail: azucker20@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                crt-2017-223
                10.4143/crt.2017.223
                6192914
                29361815
                831335b6-e019-4d5b-b47e-c220f48b6812
                Copyright © 2018 by the Korean Cancer Association

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 9 May 2017
                : 23 January 2018
                Categories
                Original Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                life expectancy,radiation oncology,prognosis
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                life expectancy, radiation oncology, prognosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article