4.7 Article

Performance status is the most powerful risk factor for early death among patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer - Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) and French Sarcoma Group (FSG) study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 104, 期 10, 页码 1544-1550

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.136

关键词

soft tissue sarcoma; early death; prediction

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: We investigated prognostic factors (PFs) for 90-day mortality in a large cohort of advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients treated with first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: The PFs were identified by both logistic regression analysis and probability tree analysis in patients captured in the Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) database (3002 patients). Scores derived from the logistic regression analysis and algorithms derived from probability tree analysis were subsequently validated in an independent study cohort from the French Sarcoma Group (FSG) database (404 patients). RESULTS: The 90-day mortality rate was 8.6 and 4.5% in both cohorts. The logistic regression analysis retained performance status (PS; odds ratio (OR) = 3.83 if PS = 1, OR = 12.00 if PS >= 2), presence of liver metastasis (OR = 2.37) and rare site metastasis (OR = 2.00) as PFs for early death. The CHAID analysis retained PS as a major discriminator followed by histological grade (only for patients with PS >= 2). In both models, PS was the most powerful PF for 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Performance status has to be taken into account in the design of further clinical trials and is one of the most important parameters to guide patient management. For those patients with poor PS, expected benefits from therapy should be weighed up carefully against the anticipated toxicities. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 1544-1550. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.136 www.bjcancer.com Published online 19 April 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

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