4.7 Article

Prospective Validation of a Prognostic Score to Improve Patient Selection for Oncology Phase I Trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 16, 页码 2692-2696

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.5081

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK Funding Source: Medline
  2. Department of Health Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose With the aim of improving patient selection for phase I trials, we previously performed a retrospective analysis of 212 phase I oncology patients where we were able to develop a prognostic score predicting overall survival (OS). This prospective study was performed to test the validity of the prognostic score. Patients and Methods On the basis of our retrospective multivariate analysis, three factors were associated with poor survival (albumin <35 g/L, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [ULN], and > two sites of metastases). We integrated these into a prognostic score ranging from 0 to 3 and analyzed this score in a prospectively selected cohort of 78 patients enrolled onto phase I trials. Results All patients had progressive disease before study entry. The median age was 56 years (range, 18 to 79 years). After a median follow-up time of 27.3 weeks, patients with a prognostic score of 0 to 1 (n = 43) had superior OS (33.0 weeks; 95% CI, 24 to 42 weeks) compared with patients with a score of 2 to 3 (n = 35; 15.7 weeks; 95% CI, 11 to 21 weeks). Our multivariate analysis confirmed that our prognostic score was an independent marker for OS, with a hazard ratio of 1.4 ( 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.9; P = .036). Conclusion This is the first prospective analysis confirming that a prognostic score based on objective markers, including albumin less than 35 g/L, LDH more than ULN, and more than two sites of metastasis, is a helpful tool in the process of patient selection for phase I trial entry. J Clin Oncol 27:2692-2696. (C) 2009 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据