ArticleThoracic cancer2025
Comparative Study on Associations Between Lung Cancer Prognosis and Diagnostic Criteria Set by the European Palliative Care Research Collaboration and the Asian Working Group for Cachexia.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting Cancer Cachexia Staging: Introducing an "At Risk" Category Based on AWGC Components.Thoracic cancer · 2025Review
- Cancer cachexia onset and survival outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer: Comparative assessment of the asian working group for cachexia and the European palliative care research collaborative criteria, and utility of modified glasgow prognostic score.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCachexia is a poor prognostic factor in many advanced cancers. Cachexia diagnostic criteria of the European Palliative Care Research Collaboration (EPCRC) may underestimate cachexia in Asians; therefore, new criteria have been proposed by the Asian Working Group for Cachexia (AWGC). We compared both criteria to determine differences in diagnostic rates and their association with lung cancer prognosis. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis single-center, retrospective cohort study considered lung cancer outpatients receiving chemotherapy. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. The association between cachexia diagnosis and prognosis was examined for each set of criteria using a Cox proportional hazards model. C-statistic analysis was performed to compare the discriminative power for prognosis.
resultsAmong the 106 participants analyzed (median age, 75 [71-79] years; 75 males [70.8%]; 91 [85.9%] with performance status [PS] 0-1), 58 (54.7%) and 77 (72.6%) cachexia cases were diagnosed using the EPCRC and AWGC criteria, respectively. The latter encompassed all but one patient diagnosed using the EPCRC criteria. Patients with cachexia had a significantly poorer prognosis according to both criteria (EPCRC, p = 0.002; AWGC, p = 0.001). Both criteria had almost equal discriminative power for prognosis (EPCRC, C-statistic = 0.658; AWGC, C-statistic = 0.658). CRP in the AWGC criteria was most strongly related to prognosis.
conclusionsCachexia was an independent poor prognostic factor in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy under the AWGC and EPCRC criteria, both of which had similar prognostic discriminatory power. Among CRP, anorexia, and grip strength, elevated CRP may be the most prognostically relevant parameter in the AWGC criteria.
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.