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

      Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Assessing Survival in Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer Referred for Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases

      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.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the optimal factors to use for constructing a nomogram to assess the probability of survival in patients with bone metastases arising from lung cancer?

          Findings

          This prognostic study of 477 patients with metastatic lung cancer found that age, histological type, smoking status, epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status, body mass index, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were ideal parameters to construct a nomogram for potentially indicating 3-, 6-, and 12-month survival. This nomogram was successfully validated in a separate cohort of 235 patients at another institution.

          Meaning

          The study’s nomogram can guide radiation oncologists in making treatment decisions and determining the proper timing for end-of-life discussions and/or hospice referrals.

          Abstract

          Importance

          A survival prediction model for patients with bone metastases arising from lung cancer would be highly valuable.

          Objective

          To develop and validate a nomogram for assessing the survival probability of patients with metastatic lung cancer receiving radiotherapy for osseous metastases.

          Design, Setting, Participants

          In this prognostic study, the putative prognostic indicators for constructing the nomogram were identified using multivariable Cox regression analysis with backward elimination and model selection based on the Akaike information criterion. The nomogram was subjected to internal (bootstrap) and external validation; its calibration and discriminative ability were evaluated with calibration plots and the Uno C statistic, respectively. The training and validation set cohorts were from a tertiary medical center in northern Taiwan and a tertiary institution in southern Taiwan, respectively. The training set comprised 477 patients with metastatic lung cancer who received radiotherapy for osseous metastases between January 2000 and December 2013. The validation set comprised 235 similar patients treated between January 2011 and December 2017. Data analysis was conducted May 2018 to July 2018.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The nomogram end points were death within 3, 6, and 12 months.

          Results

          Of 477 patients in the training set, 292 patients (61.2%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 62.86 (11.66) years. Of 235 patients in the validating set, 113 patients (48.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 62.65 (11.49) years. In the training set, 186 (39%), 291 (61%), and 359 (75%) patients died within 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, and the median overall survival was 4.21 (95% CI, 3.68-4.90) months. In the validating set, 84 (36%), 120 (51%), and 144 (61%) patients died within 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, and the median overall survival was 5.20 (95% CI, 4.07-7.17) months. Body mass index (18.5 to <25 vs ≥25: hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.78 and <18.5 vs ≥25: HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44), histology (non–small cell vs small cell lung cancer: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.86), epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (positive vs unknown: HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.93 and negative vs unknown: HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.66-1.45), smoking status (ever smoker vs never smoker: HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.24-1.83), age, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were incorporated. The HRs of age and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were modeled nonlinearly with restricted cubic splines (both P < .001). The nomogram’s discriminative ability was good in the training set (C statistic, ≥0.77; P < .001) and was validated using both an internal bootstrap method (C statistic, ≥0.76; P < .001) and an external validating set (C statistic, ≥0.75; P < .001). The calibration plots for the end points showed optimal agreement between the nomogram’s assessment and actual observations.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The nomogram (with web-based tool) can be useful for assessing the probability of survival at 3, 6, and 12 months in patients with metastatic lung cancer referred for radiotherapy to treat bone metastases, and it may guide radiation oncologists in treatment decision making and engaging patients in end-of-life discussions and/or hospice referrals at appropriate times.

          Abstract

          This prognostic study develops and validates a nomogram to assess the probability of survival at 3, 6, and 12 months in patients from Taiwan with metastatic lung cancer who were referred for radiotherapy to treat osseous metastases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

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

          Cancer cachexia: mediators, signaling, and metabolic pathways.

          Cancer cachexia is characterized by a significant reduction in body weight resulting predominantly from loss of adipose tissue and skeletal muscle. Cachexia causes reduced cancer treatment tolerance and reduced quality and length of life, and remains an unmet medical need. Therapeutic progress has been impeded, in part, by the marked heterogeneity of mediators, signaling, and metabolic pathways both within and between model systems and the clinical syndrome. Recent progress in understanding conserved, molecular mechanisms of skeletal muscle atrophy/hypertrophy has provided a downstream platform for circumventing the variations and redundancy in upstream mediators and may ultimately translate into new targeted therapies. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Health care costs in the last week of life: associations with end-of-life conversations.

            Life-sustaining medical care of patients with advanced cancer at the end of life (EOL) is costly. Patient-physician discussions about EOL wishes are associated with lower rates of intensive interventions. Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Cancer Institute, Coping With Cancer is a longitudinal multi-institutional study of 627 patients with advanced cancer. Patients were interviewed at baseline and were followed up through death. Costs for intensive care unit and hospital stays, hospice care, and life-sustaining procedures (eg, mechanical ventilator use and resuscitation) received in the last week of life were aggregated. Generalized linear models were applied to test for cost differences in EOL care. Propensity score matching was used to reduce selection biases. Of 603 participants, 188 (31.2%) reported EOL discussions at baseline. After propensity score matching, the remaining 415 patients did not differ in sociodemographic characteristics, recruitment sites, illness acknowledgment, or treatment preferences. Further analyses, adjusted by quintiles of propensity scores and significant confounders, revealed that the mean (SE) aggregate costs of care (in 2008 US dollars) were $1876 ($177) for patients who reported EOL discussions compared with $2917 ($285) for patients who did not, a cost difference of $1041 (35.7% lower among patients who reported EOL discussions) (P =.002). Patients with higher costs had worse quality of death in their final week (Pearson production moment correlation partial r = -0.17, P =.006). Patients with advanced cancer who reported having EOL conversations with physicians had significantly lower health care costs in their final week of life. Higher costs were associated with worse quality of death.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Palliative Prognostic Index: a scoring system for survival prediction of terminally ill cancer patients.

              Although accurate prediction of survival is essential for palliative care, few clinical methods of determining how long a patient is likely to live have been established. To develop a validated scoring system for survival prediction, a retrospective cohort study was performed with a training-testing procedure on two independent series of terminally ill cancer patients. Performance status (PS) and clinical symptoms were assessed prospectively. In the training set (355 assessments on 150 patients) the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) was defined by PS, oral intake, edema, dyspnea at rest, and delirium. In the testing sample (233 assessments on 95 patients) the predictive values of this scoring system were examined. In the testing set, patients were classified into three groups: group A (PPI 4.0). Group B survived significantly longer than group C, and group A survived significantly longer than either of the others. Also, when a PPI of more than 6 was adopted as a cut-off point, 3 weeks' survival was predicted with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 85%. When a PPI of more than 4 was used as a cutoff point, 6 weeks' survival was predicted with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 77%. In conclusion, whether patients live longer than 3 or 6 weeks can be acceptably predicted by PPI.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                12 October 2018
                October 2018
                12 October 2018
                : 1
                : 6
                : e183242
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
                [2 ]Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
                [3 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
                [4 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
                [5 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head, and Neck Surgery, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
                [6 ]Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
                [7 ]School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: August 7, 2018.
                Published: October 12, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3242
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2018 Yap W-K et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Ngan-Ming Tsang, MD, ScD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, 5 Fu-Shin St, Kwei-Shan, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan ( vstsang@ 123456cgmh.org.tw ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Yap and Tsang had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Yap, Shih, Tsang.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Yap, Shih, Kuo, Pai, Chou, Chang, Tsai.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Yap, Shih.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Yap, Shih, Kuo, Chou.
                Obtained funding: Tsang.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Kuo, Pai, Tsai, Tsang.
                Supervision: Yap, Tsang.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Pai and Tsang reported receiving grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, and the Chang Gung University, Taiwan, during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This research was supported by grants CMRPG3C1922 and BMRP238 from the Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University and by grant MOST 104-2320-B-182-016 from the Ministry of Science and Technology.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi180154
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3242
                6324455
                30646236
                891273e3-172a-416d-a327-4af89b8c5fba
                Copyright 2018 Yap W-K et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 14 June 2018
                : 7 August 2018
                : 7 August 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article