Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2017

01-09-2017 | Original Article

A scoring system to guide the decision for a new systemic treatment after at least two lines of palliative chemotherapy for metastatic cancers: a prospective study

Authors: Brice Chanez, François Bertucci, Marine Gilabert, Anne Madroszyk, Frédérique Rousseau, Delphine Perrot, Patrice Viens, Jean-Luc Raoul

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 9/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

A four-parameter score has been identified as associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced cancer with an estimated survival inferior to 6 months. Here, we tested its prognostic value for OS in patients who had received more than two lines of systemic therapy.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who were going to receive a third or more therapeutic line outside classical clinical guidelines. The four parameters (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, serum LDH, and serum albumin) were collected at baseline, allowing to calculate the score, which sorted the patients in three groups, A, B, and C (low, intermediate, and high score, respectively). We then searched for correlations between this grouping and clinicopathological features particularly OS.

Results

From August 2013 to March 2014, 65 patients were enrolled and corresponded after determining their score to 26 patients in group A, 30 in B, and 9 in C. The median OS of the cohort was 4.4 months, and the 6-month OS was 42%. Overall survival was different between the three groups, with respective 6-month OS equal to 80% in group A, 17% in group B, and 0% in group C and respective median OS of 9, 2.3, and 1.6 months. Such prognostic value persisted in multivariate analysis. Similar OS differences were observed in patients with PS ≤2.

Conclusion

This simple scoring should help oncologists identify which patients, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, might benefit from best supportive care alone.
Literature
1.
3.
go back to reference Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ et al (1990) Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ 300:1458–1460CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ et al (1990) Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ 300:1458–1460CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference The AM, Hak T, Koëter G, van Der Wal G (2000) Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study. BMJ 321:1376–1381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral The AM, Hak T, Koëter G, van Der Wal G (2000) Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study. BMJ 321:1376–1381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (US) National Cancer Policy Board (1999) Ensuring quality cancer care. National Academies Press (US), Washington Institute of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (US) National Cancer Policy Board (1999) Ensuring quality cancer care. National Academies Press (US), Washington
9.
go back to reference Cortes J, O’Shaughnessy J, Loesch D et al (2011) Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a phase 3 open-label randomised study. Lancet 377:914–923. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60070-6 CrossRefPubMed Cortes J, O’Shaughnessy J, Loesch D et al (2011) Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a phase 3 open-label randomised study. Lancet 377:914–923. doi:10.​1016/​S0140-6736(11)60070-6 CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655CrossRefPubMed Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M (1996) Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer 1990 32A:1135–1141 Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M (1996) Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer 1990 32A:1135–1141
14.
go back to reference Maltoni M, Nanni O, Pirovano M et al (1999) Successful validation of the palliative prognostic score in terminally ill cancer patients. Italian multicenter study group on palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manag 17:240–247CrossRef Maltoni M, Nanni O, Pirovano M et al (1999) Successful validation of the palliative prognostic score in terminally ill cancer patients. Italian multicenter study group on palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manag 17:240–247CrossRef
16.
go back to reference O’Mahony S, Nathan S, Mohajer R et al (2016) Survival prediction in ambulatory patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer using the palliative performance scale, ECOG, and lung cancer symptom scale. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 33:374–380. doi:10.1177/1049909115570707 CrossRefPubMed O’Mahony S, Nathan S, Mohajer R et al (2016) Survival prediction in ambulatory patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer using the palliative performance scale, ECOG, and lung cancer symptom scale. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 33:374–380. doi:10.​1177/​1049909115570707​ CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S (2001) Improved accuracy of physicians’ survival prediction for terminally ill cancer patients using the Palliative Prognostic Index. Palliat Med 15:419–424CrossRefPubMed Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S (2001) Improved accuracy of physicians’ survival prediction for terminally ill cancer patients using the Palliative Prognostic Index. Palliat Med 15:419–424CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference de Kock I, Mirhosseini M, Lau F et al (2013) Conversion of Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG) to Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), and the interchangeability of PPS and KPS in prognostic tools. J Palliat Care 29:163–169PubMed de Kock I, Mirhosseini M, Lau F et al (2013) Conversion of Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG) to Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), and the interchangeability of PPS and KPS in prognostic tools. J Palliat Care 29:163–169PubMed
20.
Metadata
Title
A scoring system to guide the decision for a new systemic treatment after at least two lines of palliative chemotherapy for metastatic cancers: a prospective study
Authors
Brice Chanez
François Bertucci
Marine Gilabert
Anne Madroszyk
Frédérique Rousseau
Delphine Perrot
Patrice Viens
Jean-Luc Raoul
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 9/2017
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3680-1

Other articles of this Issue 9/2017

Supportive Care in Cancer 9/2017 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine