ABSTRACT
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and Gleason score are commonly investigated factors for overall survival (OS) in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, there is a lack of consistency regarding their prognostic or predictive value for OS. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to assess the associations of ECOG performance status and Gleason score with OS in CRPC patients and compare the two markers in patients under different treatment regimens or with different chemotherapy histories. A systematic literature review of monotherapy studies in CRPC patients was conducted in the PubMed database until May 2019. The data from 8247 patients in 34 studies, including clinical trials and real-world data, were included in our meta-analysis. Of these, twenty studies reported multivariate results and were included in our main analysis. CRPC patients with higher ECOG performance statuses (≥ 2) had a significantly increased mortality risk than those with lower ECOG performance statuses (<2), hazard ratio (HR): 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.68-2.62, and P < 0.001. The synthesized HR of OS stratified by Gleason score was 1.01, with a 95% CI of 0.62-1.67 (Gleason score ≥ 8 vs <8). Subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference in pooled HRs for patients administered taxane chemotherapy (docetaxel and cabazitaxel) and androgen-targeting therapy (abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide) or for patients with different chemotherapy histories. ECOG performance status was identified as a significant prognostic factor in CRPC patients, while Gleason score showed a weak prognostic value for OS based on the available data in our meta-analysis.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) C stage demonstrates considerable heterogeneity because it includes patients with either symptomatic tumors (performance status [PS], 1–2) or with an invasive tumoral pattern reflected by the presence of vascular invasion (VI) or extrahepatic spread (EHS). This study aimed to derive a more relevant staging system by modification of the BCLC system considering the prognostic implication of PS. METHODS: A total of 7,501 subjects who were registered in the Korean multicenter hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) registry database from 2008 to 2013 were analyzed. The relative goodness-of-fit between staging systems was compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and integrated area under the curve (IAUC). Three modified BCLC (m-BCLC) systems (#1, #2, and #3) were devised by reducing the role of PS. RESULTS: As a result, the BCLC C stage, which includes patients with PS 1–2 without VI/EHS, was reassigned to stage 0, A, or B according to their tumor burden in the m-BCLC #2 model. This model was identified as the most explanatory and desirable model for HCC staging by demonstrating the smallest AIC (AIC=70,088.01) and the largest IAUC (IAUC=0.722), while the original BCLC showed the largest AIC (AIC=70,697.17) and the smallest IAUC (IAUC=0.705). The m-BCLC #2 stage C was further subclassified into C1, C2, C3, and C4 according to the Child-Pugh score, PS, presence of EHS, and tumor extent. The C1 to C4 subgroups showed significantly different overall survival distribution between groups (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An accurate and relevant staging system for patients with HCC was derived though modification of the BCLC system based on PS.
Subject(s)
Humans , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular , Liver Neoplasms , Liver , Population Characteristics , Tumor BurdenABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) score of 3 or 4.Patients and Methods: We reviewed the data of 287 patients with native papillae who underwent therapeutic ERCP for biliary disease at our hospital between October 2016 and October 2018. The patients were divided into two groups; those with an ECOG-PS score of 3 or 4 (group A; n=78) and those with an ECOG-PS score of 0–2 (group B; n=209).Results: The rate of technical success was not significantly different between the two groups (95% versus 89%, P=0.13). Although the occurrence rate of overall adverse events (10% versus 11%, P=0.95) was not significantly different between the groups, the occurrence rates of aspiration pneumonia (3.8% versus 0%, P=0.0044) and heart failure (2.6% versus 0%, P=0.020) were significantly higher in group A.Conclusion: The rates of technical success and overall adverse events did not significantly differ between patients with an ECOG-PS score of 3 or 4 and those with a score of 0–2; however, aspiration pneumonia and heart failure were more likely to occur among patients with an ECOG-PS score of 3 or 4.