Prognostic value of health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a random forest methodology
- 327 Downloads
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) is currently an important parameter in the choice of treatment strategy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPA) patients. However, previous research has shown that patients’ self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scales provided additional prognostic information in homogeneous groups of patients with respect to ECOG-PS. The aim of this study was to identify HRQOL scales with independent prognostic value in mPA and to propose prognostic groups for these patients.
We analysed data from 98 chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically proven mPA recruited from 2007 to 2011 in the FIRGEM phase II study which aimed to compare the effectiveness of two chemotherapy regimen. HRQOL data were assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. A random survival forest methodology was used to impute missing data and to identify major prognostic factors for overall survival.
Baseline HRQOL assessment was completed by 60 % of patients (59/98). Twelve prognostic variables were identified. The three most important prognostic variables were fatigue, appetite loss, and role functioning, followed by three laboratory variables. The model’s discriminative power assessed by Harrell’s C statistic was 0.65. Fatigue score explained almost all the survival variability.
HRQOL scores have prognostic value for mPA patients with good ECOG-PS. Moreover, the patient’s fatigue, appetite loss, and self-perception of daily activities were more reliable prognostic indicators than clinical and laboratory variables. These HRQOL scores, especially the fatigue symptom, should be urgently included for prognostic assessment of mPA patients (with good ECOG-PS).
KeywordsPrognosis Quality of life Pancreatic adenocarcinoma Metastatic
This study did not receive any direct funding. However, we used data from the FIRGEM phase II trial which was funded by Pfizer and two French associations: AGEO (Association des Gastro-Entérologues Oncologues) and AROLD (Association pour la Recherche en Oncologie Digestive).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.International Union against Cancer. (2010). TNM classification of malignant tumours (7th ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 6.Bernhard, J., Dietrich, D., Glimelius, B., et al. (2010). Estimating prognosis and palliation based on tumour marker CA 19-9 and quality of life indicators in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy. British Journal of Cancer, 103, 1318–1324. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605929.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Gourgou-Bourgade, S., Bascoul-Mollevi, C., Desseigne, F., et al. (2013). Impact of FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine on quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: Results from the PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2013(31), 23–29. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.4869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Steyerberg, E. W. (2008). Clinical prediction models: A practical approach to development, validation, and updating (1st ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
- 10.Trouilloud, I., Dupont-Gossard, A.-C., Malka, D., et al. (2014). Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine alone or alternating with FOLFIRI.3 (irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil) in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: An AGEO randomised phase II study (FIRGEM). European Journal of Cancer, 50, 3116–3124. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.09.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Bonnetain, F., Bonsing, B., Conroy, T., et al. (2014). Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials). European Journal of Cancer, 50, 2983–2993. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.07.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Harrell, F. E., Lee, K. L., & Mark, D. B. (1996). Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statistics in Medicine, 15, 361–387. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361:AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Diouf, M., Bonnetain, F., Barbare, J.-C., et al. (2015). Optimal Cut Points for Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) Scales: Utility for clinical trials and updates of prognostic systems in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The Oncologist, 20(1), 62–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Haas, M., Heinemann, V., Kullmann, F., et al. (2013). Prognostic value of CA 19-9, CEA, CRP, LDH and bilirubin levels in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: Results from a multicenter, pooled analysis of patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 139, 681–689. doi: 10.1007/s00432-012-1371-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar