36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      New prognostic factors and scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis

      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

          The aim of this study was to update a previous scoring system for patients with skeletal metastases, that was proposed by Katagiri et al. in 2005, by introducing a new factor (laboratory data) and analyzing a new patient cohort. Between January 2005 and January 2008, we treated 808 patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases. They were prospectively registered regardless of their treatments, and the last follow-up evaluation was performed in 2012. There were 441 male and 367 female patients with a median age of 64 years. Of these patients, 749 were treated nonsurgically while the remaining 59 underwent surgery for skeletal metastasis. A multivariate analysis was conducted using the Cox proportional hazards model. We identified six significant prognostic factors for survival, namely, the primary lesion, visceral or cerebral metastases, abnormal laboratory data, poor performance status, previous chemotherapy, and multiple skeletal metastases. The first three factors had a larger impact than the remaining three. The prognostic score was calculated by adding together all the scores for individual factors. With a prognostic score of ≥7, the survival rate was 27% at 6 months, and only 6% at 1 year. In contrast, patients with a prognostic score of ≤3 had a survival rate of 91% at 1 year, and 78% at 2 years. Comparing the revised system with the previous one, there was a significantly lower number of wrongly predicted patients using the revised system. This revised scoring system was able to predict the survival rates of patients with skeletal metastases more accurately than the previous system and may be useful for selecting an optimal treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

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

          Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices.

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

            Predictors of survival in patients with bone metastasis of lung cancer.

            The prognosis of patients with bone metastasis from lung cancer has not been well documented. We assessed the survival rates after bone metastasis and prognostic factors in 118 patients with bone metastases from lung cancer. The cumulative survival rates after bone metastasis from lung cancer were 59.9% at 6 months, 31.6% at 1 year, and 11.3% at 2 years. The mean survival was 9.7 months (median, 7.2 months; range, 0.1-74.5 months). A favorable prognosis was more likely in women and patients with adenocarcinoma, solitary bone metastasis, no metastases to the appendicular bone, no pathologic fractures, performance status 1 or less, use of systemic chemotherapy, and use of an epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor. Analyses of single and multiple variables indicated better prognoses for patients with adenocarcinoma, no evidence of appendicular bone metastases, and treatment with an epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor. The mean survival period was longer in a small group treated with an epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor than in the larger untreated group. The data preliminarily suggest treatment with an epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor may improve survival after bone metastasis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation of five radiation schedules and prognostic factors for metastatic spinal cord compression.

              To study five radiotherapy (RT) schedules and potential prognostic factors for functional outcome in metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). One thousand three hundred four patients who were irradiated from January 1992 to December 2003 were included in this retrospective review. The schedules of 1 x 8 Gy in 1 day (n = 261), 5 x 4 Gy in 1 week (n = 279), 10 x 3 Gy in 2 weeks (n = 274), 15 x 2.5 Gy in 3 weeks (n = 233), and 20 x 2 Gy in 4 weeks (n = 257) were compared for motor function, ambulatory status, and in-field recurrences. The following potential prognostic factors were investigated: age, sex, performance status, histology, number of involved vertebra, interval from cancer diagnosis to MSCC, pretreatment ambulatory status, and time of developing motor deficits before RT. A multivariate analysis was performed with the ordered logit model. Motor function improved in 26% (1 x 8 Gy), 28% (5 x 4 Gy), 27% (10 x 3 Gy), 31% (15 x 2.5 Gy), and 28% (20 x 2 Gy); and posttreatment ambulatory rates were 69%, 68%, 63%, 66%, and 74% (P = .578), respectively. On multivariate analysis, age, performance status, primary tumor, involved vertebra, interval from cancer diagnosis to MSCC, pretreatment ambulatory status, and time of developing motor deficits were significantly associated with functional outcome, whereas the RT schedule was not. Acute toxicity was mild, and late toxicity was not observed. In-field recurrence rates at 2 years were 24% (1 x 8 Gy), 26% (5 x 4 Gy), 14% (10 x 3 Gy), 9% (15 x 2.5 Gy), and 7% (20 x 2 Gy) (P < .001). Neither the difference between 1 x 8 Gy and 5 x 4 Gy (P = .44) nor between 10 x 3 Gy, 15 x 2.5 Gy, and 20 x 2 Gy (P = .71) was significant. The five RT schedules provided similar functional outcome. The three more protracted schedules seemed to result in fewer in-field recurrences. To minimize treatment time, the following two schedules are recommended: 1 x 8 Gy for patients with poor predicted survival and 10 x 3 Gy for other patients. Results should be confirmed in a prospective randomized trial.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cancer Med
                Cancer Med
                cam4
                Cancer Medicine
                Blackwell Publishing Ltd (Oxford, UK )
                2045-7634
                2045-7634
                October 2014
                10 July 2014
                : 3
                : 5
                : 1359-1367
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Orthopaedic Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, Japan
                [2 ]Department of Preventive Medicine, Nagoya University, Graduate School of Medicine Nagoya, Japan
                [3 ]Division of Radiation Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, Japan
                Author notes
                Hirohisa Katagiri, Division of Orthopedic Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Nagaizumi, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka 411-8777, Japan. Tel: +81-55-989-5222; Fax: +55-989-5634; E-mail: h.katagiri@ 123456scchr.jp

                Funding Information No funding information provided.

                Article
                10.1002/cam4.292
                4302686
                25044999
                e915d867-fcfd-4b4f-b0af-88822b9209d0
                © 2014 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 23 February 2014
                : 30 May 2014
                : 03 June 2014
                Categories
                Clinical Cancer Research
                Original Research

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                laboratory data,multivariate analysis,prognostic factor,prognostic scoring system,skeletal metastasis

                Comments

                Comment on this article