Comparison of four clinical prognostic scores in patients with advanced gastric and esophageal cancer.

Authors

null

Lucy Xiaolu Ma

Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

Lucy Xiaolu Ma , Osvaldo Espin-Garcia , Yvonne Bach , Hiroko Aoyama , Michael J Allen , Xin Wang , Gail Elizabeth Darling , Jonathan Yeung , Carol Jane Swallow , Savtaj Singh Brar , Patrick Veit-Haibach , Sangeetha Kalimuthu , Rebecca KS Wong , Eric Xueyu Chen , Grainne M. O'Kane , Raymond Woo-Jun Jang , Elena Elimova

Organizations

Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, Division of Thoracic Oncology, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada, Joint Division of Medical Imaging (JDMI), University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, Laboratory Medicine Program, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, Division of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, ON, Canada

Research Funding

No funding received

Background: While several clinical scoring systems exist to aid prognostication and patient (pt) selection for clinical trials in oncology, none are standardly used. We compared the ability of four prognostic scores to predict overall survival (OS) in pts with advanced gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer. Methods: Pts with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) GE cancer receiving first-line palliative-intent systemic therapy at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2007 to 2020 were included. High prognostic risk pts were identified using four scoring systems: Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), Gustave Roussy Immune Score (GRIm-S) and MD Anderson Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (MDA-ICI) score. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between risk groups (high vs. not-high) for each scoring system using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the association between each prognostic score and OS, adjusting for baseline clinical factors. Harrell’s c-index was used to evaluate predictive discrimination of the models. Time-dependent AUCs were used to measure predictive ability for early death (within 90 days). Results: In total, 451 pts with advanced GE cancer were included. The median age was 59 years, 68% were male, 51% had ECOG status 0-1, 63% presented with de novo metastatic disease. The proportion of pts categorized as high risk was: RMH 25% (N=113), MDACC 13% (N=95), GRIm-S 24% (N=109), MDA-ICI 26% (N=117). In all scoring systems, high risk pts had significantly shorter OS (median OS 7.9 versus 12.2 months for RMH high vs. low risk, p<0.001; 6.8 vs. 11.9 months p<0.001 for MDACC; 5.3 vs. 13 months p<0.001 for GRIm-S; 8.2 vs. 12.2 months p<0.001 for MDA-ICI). On multivariable analysis, each prognostic score was significantly associated with OS (Table). The GRIm-S had the highest predictive discrimination (c-index 0.645 [0.612-0.678]) and highest predictive ability for early death (AUC 0.754 [0.675-0.832]). Conclusions: All four prognostic scoring systems compared had reasonable accuracy in predicting OS for patients with advanced GE cancer. The higher accuracy for predicting early death may render the GRIm-S as preferable. These tools can aid oncologists in discussions about prognosis, therapeutic decision-making and patient selection for clinical trials.

Multivariable analyses of association between high risk designation and OS for each prognostic score.1

Score
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
p-value
RMH
1.48 (1.08-2.02)
0.013
MDACC
1.64 (1.19-2.25)
0.0022
GRIm-Score
2.61 (2.01-3.38)
<0.001
MDA-ICI
1.53 (1.17-1.99)
0.0019

1Each multivariable model adjusted for baseline characteristics: age, sex, histology, ECOG, and number of metastatic sites.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Gastrointestinal Cancer—Gastroesophageal, Pancreatic, and Hepatobiliary

Track

Gastrointestinal Cancer—Gastroesophageal, Pancreatic, and Hepatobiliary

Sub Track

Esophageal or Gastric Cancer

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 16; abstr 4057)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.4057

Abstract #

4057

Poster Bd #

45

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts