4.7 Article

Flexible modeling improves assessment of prognostic value of C-reactive protein in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 102, Issue 7, Pages 1113-1122

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605603

Keywords

non-small cell lung cancer; inflammation; prognosis; C-reactive protein; albumin; survival analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Terry Fox Research Institute
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [MOP-8127]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) is gaining credibility as a prognostic factor in different cancers. Cox's proportional hazard (PH) model is usually used to assess prognostic factors. However, this model imposes a priori assumptions, which are rarely tested, that (1) the hazard ratio associated with each prognostic factor remains constant across the follow-up (PH assumption) and (2) the relationship between a continuous predictor and the logarithm of the mortality hazard is linear (linearity assumption). METHODS: We tested these two assumptions of the Cox's PH model for CRP, using a flexible statistical model, while adjusting for other known prognostic factors, in a cohort of 269 patients newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RESULTS: In the Cox's PH model, high CRP increased the risk of death (HR=1.11 per each doubling of CRP value, 95% CI: 1.03-1.20, P=0.008). However, both the PH assumption (P=0.033) and the linearity assumption (P=0.015) were rejected for CRP, measured at the initiation of chemotherapy, which kept its prognostic value for approximately 18 months. CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows that flexible modeling provides new insights regarding the value of CRP as a prognostic factor in NSCLC and that Cox's PH model underestimates early risks associated with high CRP. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 1113-1122. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605603 www.bjcancer.com Published online 16 March 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available