Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology 4/2019

01-04-2019 | Original Article

Prognostic factors in patients who received end-of-life chemotherapy for advanced cancer

Authors: Shuji Hiramoto, Tomoko Tamaki, Kengo Nagashima, Tetsuo Hori, Ayako Kikuchi, Akira Yoshioka, Akira Inoue

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clinical efficacy of aggressive end-of-life (EOL) chemotherapy remains unclear.

Method

Medical records of patients with advanced cancer between August 2011 and August 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was to identify prognostic factors at the last administration of chemotherapy. The secondary endpoint was to analyze the relationship between EOL symptoms and EOL treatment details.

Results

Among 300 evaluated patients, the number of patients who died within 14 and 30 days from the last administration of chemotherapy were 16 (5.3%) and 50 (16.7%), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that ECOG-PS (OR 3.698, p < 0.001) and GPS2 (OR 3.791, p = 0.028) were significant prognostic factors. The MST of patients with both PS 2–4 and GPS2 (+) was 38 days, while that in patients with both PS 0–1 and GPS2 (−) was 134.5 days. The prevalence rate of nausea and vomiting (25.0%) and the mean hydration volume (0.50 L/day) in patients who died within 30 days from the chemotherapy was significantly higher than others (7.4%) (0.20 L/day).

Conclusion

ECOG-PS and GPS were significant prognostic factors for aggressive EOL chemotherapy. Information on these factors may aid clinical decision-making in terms of risk–benefit balance, particularly in patients with poor prognosis.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Earle CC, Neville BA, Lndrum MB et al (2004) Trends in aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. J Clin Oncol 22:315–321CrossRefPubMed
2.
Nappa U, Lindqvist O, Rasmussen BA et al (2011) Palliative chemotherapy during the last month of life. Ann Oncol 22:2375–2380CrossRefPubMed
3.
Braga S, Rute Fonseca AM, Moreira A et al (2007) The aggressiveness of cancer care in the last three months of life: a retrospective single centre analysis. Pscho-Oncology 16:863–868CrossRef
4.
Barbera L (2006) Indicators of poor quality end-of-life cancer care in Ontario. J Palliat Care 22:12–17PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hanny A, Sonja H, Georg B (2014) Chemotherapy near the end of life: a retrospective single-centere analysis of patients’ charts. BMC Palliat Care 13:26CrossRef
6.
Kao S, Shafig J, Adams D (2009) Use of chemotherapy at end of life in oncology patients. Ann Oncol 20:1555–1559CrossRefPubMed
7.
Petra G, Aynharan S, Theresas T et al (2015) Variations in intensity of end-of-life cancer therapy by cancer type at a Canadian tertiary cancer centre between 2003 and 2010. Support Care Cancer 23(10):3059–67CrossRef
8.
Forrest LM, McMillan DC, McArdle CS et al (2003) Evaluation of cumulative prognostic scores based on the systemic inflammatory response in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 89:1028–1030CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Inoue SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA et al (1990) Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med 113:941–948CrossRef
10.
Morita T, Bito S, Kurihara Y et al (2005) Development of a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy using the Delphi method. J Palliat Med 8:716–729CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Nozoe T, Ninomiya M, Maeda T et al (2010) Prognostic nutritional index: a tool to predict the biological aggressivenesss of gastric carcinoma. Surg Today 40:440–443CrossRefPubMed
13.
Maeda K, Shibutani M, Otani H et al (2014) Low nutritional prognostic index correlates with poor survival in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer following palliative resection of the primary tumor. Eorld J Surg 38:1217–1222
14.
Kanda M, Fujii T, Kodera Y et al (2011) Nutritional predictors of postoperative outcome in pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 98:268–274CrossRefPubMed
15.
Masaichi O, Naoshi K, Go M et al (2015) Glasgow prognostic score as a prognostic clinical marker in T4 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Anticancer Res 35:4897–4902
16.
Okuno T, Wakabayashi M, Kato K et al (2017) Esophageal stenosis and the Glasgow Prognostic Score as independent factors of poor prognosis for patients with locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy (exploratory analysis of JCOG0303). Int J Clin Oncol 22(6):1042–1049CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Hiramoto S, Kato K, Boku N (2018) A retrospective analysis of 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin as first line chemotherapy in the recent treatment strategy for patients with metastatic or recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 23(3):466–472CrossRefPubMed
18.
Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Usui K et al (2009) First-line gefitinib for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations without indication for chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 27(9):1394–1400CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Prognostic factors in patients who received end-of-life chemotherapy for advanced cancer
Authors
Shuji Hiramoto
Tomoko Tamaki
Kengo Nagashima
Tetsuo Hori
Ayako Kikuchi
Akira Yoshioka
Akira Inoue
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Oncology / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1341-9625
Electronic ISSN: 1437-7772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1363-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

International Journal of Clinical Oncology 4/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Body composition as a predictor of toxicity after treatment with eribulin for advanced soft tissue sarcoma

Original Article

Prognostic impact of underlying lung disease in pulmonary wedge resection for lung cancer

Original Article

Usefulness of cell-free and concentrated ascites reinfusion therapy in the therapeutic management of advanced ovarian cancer patients with massive ascites

Original Article

To what extent does the EQ-5D-3L correlate with the FACT-H&N of patients with oral cancer during the perioperative period?

Original Article

Verification of the diagnostic strategy for anterior mediastinal tumors

Review Article

Survivin rs9904341 polymorphism significantly increased the risk of cancer: evidence from an updated meta-analysis of case–control studies
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

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
Image Credits