Prospective validation of a prognostic score to improve patient selection for oncology phase I trials

183Citations
Citations of this article
87Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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. © 2009 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Arkenau, H. T., Barriuso, J., Olmos, D., Ang, J. E., De Bono, J., Judson, I., & Kaye, S. (2009). Prospective validation of a prognostic score to improve patient selection for oncology phase I trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(16), 2692–2696. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.5081

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free