ArticleThe oncologist2019
"How Long Have I Got?"-A Prospective Cohort Study Comparing Validated Prognostic Factors for Use in Patients with Advanced Cancer.
Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Prognostic evaluation in patients with advanced cancer in the last months of life: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline.ESMO open · 2023Guideline
- Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life of Parenteral Nutrition for Patients with Advanced Cancer Cachexia: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.The oncologist · 2020Trial
- Trial
- The prognostic value of a laboratory cachexia score (LCAS) defined by LDH, CRP and albumin in patients with advanced lung cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Review
- CRP/albumin, Glasgow prognostic score, and prognostic nutritional index as a predictor of mortality among delirium patients.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Initial active surveillance for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: 10 years' experience at a regional cancer Centre.Cancer medicine · 2023Observational
- Lactate dehydrogenase: relationship with the diagnostic GLIM criterion for cachexia in patients with advanced cancer.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Biomarkers of systemic inflammation predict survival with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Successful Strategies and Areas of Improvement-Lessons Learned from Design and Conduction of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial in Palliative Care, 'Palliative-D'.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Novel risk scoring system for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with cabozantinib.Cancer treatment and research communications · 2021Article
- The relationship between the BMI-adjusted weight loss grading system and quality of life in patients with incurable cancer.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2020Article
- Prognosticating for Adult Patients With Advanced Incurable Cancer: a Needed Oncologist Skill.Current treatment options in oncology · 2020Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal prognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer are not known, as a comparison of these is lacking. The aim of the present study was to determine the optimal prognostic factors by comparing validated factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsA multicenter, prospective observational cohort study recruited patients over 18 years with advanced cancer. The following were assessed: clinician-predicted survival (CPS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), patient reported outcome measures (anorexia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, global health), metastatic disease, weight loss, modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) based on C-reactive protein and albumin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and white (WCC), neutrophil (NC), and lymphocyte cell counts. Survival at 1 and 3 months was assessed using area under the receiver operating curve and logistic regression analysis.
resultsData were available on 478 patients, and the median survival was 4.27 (1.86-7.03) months. On univariate analysis, the following factors predicted death at 1 and 3 months: CPS, ECOG-PS, mGPS, WCC, NC (all
conclusionThe simple combination of ECOG-PS and mGPS is an important novel prognostic framework which can alert clinicians to patients with good performance status who are at increased risk of having a higher symptom burden and dying at 3 months. From the recent literature it is likely that this framework will also be useful in referral for early palliative care with 6-24 months survival. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This large cohort study examined all validated prognostic factors in a head-to-head comparison and demonstrated the superior prognostic value of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS)/modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) combination over other prognostic factors. This combination is simple, accurate, and also relates to quality of life. It may be useful in identifying patients who may benefit from early referral to palliative care. It is proposed ECOG-PS/mGPS as the new prognostic domain in patients with advanced cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.