Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Performance Status and Its Changes Predict Outcome for Patients With Inoperable Stage III NSCLC Undergoing Multimodal Treatment

LUKAS KÄSMANN, JULIAN TAUGNER, CHUKWUKA EZE, OLARN ROENGVORAPHOJ, MAURICE DANTES, KATHRIN GENNEN, MONIKA KARIN, OLEG PETRUKHNOV, AMANDA TUFMAN, CLAUS BELKA and FARKHAD MANAPOV
Anticancer Research September 2019, 39 (9) 5077-5081; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13701
LUKAS KÄSMANN
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
2Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Munich, Germany
3German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: LKaesmann@gmail.com
JULIAN TAUGNER
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CHUKWUKA EZE
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
OLARN ROENGVORAPHOJ
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MAURICE DANTES
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KATHRIN GENNEN
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MONIKA KARIN
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
OLEG PETRUKHNOV
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
AMANDA TUFMAN
2Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Munich, Germany
4Department of Pneumology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CLAUS BELKA
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
2Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Munich, Germany
3German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FARKHAD MANAPOV
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
2Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Munich, Germany
3German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Patient performance scores are used widely in clinical practice to assess a patient's general condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic role of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS) before, after and its changes during chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: Records of 99 patients with stage III NSCLC were evaluated. ECOG PS before, during and after chemoradiotherapy was analyzed for prognostic impact on overall (OS) and event-free (EFS) survival. Results: Median OS considering the entire cohort was 20.8 months (range=15.3-26.2 months). Median OS, and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 26.4 months, 85% and 53% in patients with ECOG PS 0 versus 18.9 months, 69% and 37% in patients with ECOG PS 1 (p=0.1, log-rank test), respectively. After the first follow-up, 35% of patients presented worsening ECOG PS, while in 65% it was stable or improved. Median EFS according to ECOG PS 0, 1, 2 and 3 was 9.6, 9.0, 7.9 and 3.5 months, respectively, at the first follow-up (p=0.018, log-rank test). Deterioration of ECOG PS after chemoradiotherapy resulted in reduced OS in the subgroups with initial ECOG PS 0 and 1 (p=0.005 and p=0.001, log-rank test). Conclusion: ECOG PS and its changes have a strong impact on patient outcome. Deterioration of performance status was a strong negative prognostic factor for EFS and OS.

  • NSCLC
  • chemoradiotherapy
  • survival
  • prognostic factor
  • ECOG

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide (1-4). Over 80% of all lung cancers are characterized as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), mainly squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma and large-cell carcinoma (3-5). Stage III NSCLC represents a locally advanced stage with heterogenous characteristics such as extensive lymph node (N3) involvement, large tumour volumes or infiltration of surrounding structures e.g. mediastinum, heart or spinal column (3, 4, 6).

Karnofsky's performance status (KPS) or the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Scale (ECOG PS) are widely used methods of assessing the functional status of cancer patients (7-11). Success of the individualized multimodal treatment highly depends on general and functional patient performance. A multimodal approach including chemo-, immunotherapy and locoregional thoracic irradiation is considered a standard of care in the treatment of inoperable stage III NSCLC. Patients with a good performance status (ECOG PS 0 or 1) should receive definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by consolidation programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition (3, 4, 12, 13). However, not all patients will be able to tolerate intensified multimodal approaches and understanding the role of patient performance during the course of treatment is necessary for personalized decision making. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the prognostic role of ECOG PS before, during and after CRT in stage III NSCLC.

Patients and Methods

Medical records of 99 patients consecutively treated with curative-intent multimodal treatment between December 2010 and December 2016 for stage IIIA/B NSCLC according to the seventh edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) classification were included (14). Pre-treatment evaluation included: patient history i.e. tobacco consumption, comorbidities, pulmonary function testing, radiographic imaging including computed tomography (CT) for all patients and positron-emission tomography (PET)-CT in 94%, routine blood work to assess kidney, liver function and blood cell count.

Tumor histology was obtained via transbronchial biopsy in 80 patients, via CT-guided-biopsy in nine patients and with mediastinoscopy in 10. Therapeutic approach was discussed in Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards with. Informed consent was given by all patients for evaluation of the acquired data for research purposes. There was Ethical Committee approval for analysis and publishing of the patients' data (approval number: 17-230).

Treatment. Treatment was planned and delivered at one European tertiary cancer center. Three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiotherapy was delivered to the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes to a median total dose of 66 Gy (range=45-70 Gy). Elective nodal irradiation included directly adjacent nodal stations and was delivered to a total dose of 45-54 Gy to 85% of patients. Radiotherapy was delivered on a linear accelerator with megavoltage capability (6-15 MV) using 3D-CRT in 60% of patients and Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in 40% of patients. Image guidance was performed with cone-beam CT two or three times a week.

Patient follow-up. Local and locoregional progression and new distant metastases were documented with CT, PET-CT and magnetic resonance imaging scans. For the first 2 years after therapy, all patients underwent CT or PET-CT scans, routine blood work, lung-function testing and clinical examination every 3 months, and afterwards twice a year. Event-free survival was calculated from the first day of radiation therapy.

Statistical analysis. All statistics were performed with IBM SPSS version 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Survival curves were calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test (univariate analysis). Factors showing a significantly negative association with patient prognosis (p<0.05) were included in multivariate analysis using Cox regression.

Results

A summary of patient and tumor characteristics is shown in Table I. The median survival was 20.8 months (range=15.3-26.2 months) in the entire patient cohort. Squamous cell carcinoma was diagnosed in 42% of patients, adenocarcinoma in 50% and not otherwise specified in 8% at initial diagnosis. The majority of patients were male (63%) and the median age at diagnosis was 67.4 years (range=43-88 years). Overall, 56% of all patients had NSCLC stage IIIB according to the UICC (seventh edition). Patients were mostly diagnosed with T-stage 3 (30%) or 4 (40%) and N-stage 2 (36%) or 3 (45%). The majority of all patients (78%) received concurrent CRT. The predominant concurrent chemotherapy regimen consisted of cisplatin given intravenously at a dose of 20 mg/m2 on days 1-4 and oral vinorelbine (Navelbine) 50 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks for two courses (46% of patients).

Patients with an initial ECOG PS 0 had a median OS of 26.4 months and an 1- and 2-year survival rate of 85% and 53% compared to patients with an ECOG PS 1 with a median OS of 18.9 months an 1- and 2-year survival rate of 69% and 37% (p=0.1, log-rank test) (see Table II). At the first follow-up after multimodal treatment, 34% of all patients had ECOG PS 0, 46% ECOG PS 1, 18% ECOG PS 2 and 2% ECOG PS 3. Median OS, 1- and 2-year survival rates were: 40.3 months, 88% and 64% in patients with ECOG PS 0 at the first follow-up; 19.3 months, 82% and 40% for ECOG PS 1; 11.9 months, 50% and 28% for ECOG PS 2; and 7.6 months, 0% and 0% for ECOG PS 3 (p<0.001, log-rank test), respectively. Decline of ECOG PS after multimodal treatment had a negative prognostic impact on OS in patients with initial ECOG PS 0 [median OS 19.1 vs. 31.4 months (p=0.005, log-rank test)] and 1 [median OS 22.9 vs. 11.1 months (p=0.001, log-rank test)]. In the multivariate analysis, male gender (hazard ratio=1.964; 95% confidence interval=1.201-3.211; p=0.007) and ECOG PS after treatment (hazard ratio=1.67, 95% confidence interval=1.082-2.577; p=0.021) achieved significance. Median EFS according to ECOG PS 0, 1, 2 and 3 was 9.6, 9.0, 7.9 and 3.5 months at the first follow-up (p=0.018, log-rank test). Deterioration of ECOG PS after CRT resulted in reduced EFS (median time 9.4 vs. 7.7 months, p=0.049, log-rank test). No factor achieved significance in the multivariate analysis for EFS.

Discussion

Management of inoperable stage III NSCLC is very heterogeneous and may include different treatment modalities such as chemotherapy, locoregional thoracic irradiation, concurrent CRT, immunotherapy, targeted therapy and best supportive care depending on the performance status patient's (3, 4). As a result of the PACIFIC trial, concurrent platinum-based CRT followed by consolidation PD-L1 inhibition for over 1 year represents the actual standard of care for patients with inoperable stage III with good initial performance status (13).

In the real-life setting, not all patients will be able to tolerate and successfully complete such an intensified multimodal approach. In this situation, clinicians need to assess the suitability for the defined treatment approach continuously. Since their development 50 years ago, the KPS and ECOG PS have been established as standard simple assessment tools to determine the patient functional status (15, 16). KPS and ECOG PS have been shown to be correlated with response and tolerability to oncological treatment modalities, (overall) survival, and quality of life (8, 10, 17, 18). Assessing the patient's general condition with KPS or ECOG PS also has several limitations which need to be considered e.g. high interobserver variability and subjective scoring. Interestingly, according to the results of Buccheri et al., KPS showed less ability than ECOG PS to discriminate patients with different prognoses and therefore they recommended the usage of ECOG PS over KPS (19). Despite limitations, important clinical decisions are based on these performance scores, including a definition of personalized therapeutic approach and follow-up intensity as well as eligibility for clinical trials. A poor performance status is associated with increased risk for treatment-related toxicity and poor oncological outcomes compared to patients with better performance status (20). In our study, patients with an initial ECOG 0 showed an improved median survival of 26.4 months compared to patients with ECOG PS 1 with 18.9 months. After the administered CRT, the performance status differed widely from ECOG PS 0 (34%), 1 (46%), 2 (18%) to 3 (2% of all patients). This important finding might be explained by the acute side-effects of the administered multimodal treatment, individual patient ability to recover, and through the course of treated cancer (non-response vs. response to applied therapy). The majority of patients benefit during CRT due to effective symptom and tumor control. Based on treatment response, some patients experienced a significant improvement of their initial performance status.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patient- and tumor-related characteristics.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Univariate analysis of overall survival.

The principal finding of the present study was that ECOG PS at the first follow-up after CRT was highly correlated with the median survival duration (p<0.001). ECOG PS decline after multimodal treatment appears to be strong negative prognostic factor for OS in patients with initial ECOG PS of 0-1. Moreover, EFS was not affected by ECOG PS before multimodal treatment but was significantly impaired by decline of ECOG PS after CRT, with median time of 9.4 vs. 7.7 months, respectively.

Several limitations of this study must be considered, such as the retrospective nature and, therefore, a risk of including hidden selection biases. Accurate scoring of performance status is of critical importance because decision-making needs to be based on its correct assessment, including the eligibility for and planning of clinical trials and allocation of healthcare resources such as palliative care. In our study, ECOG PS was scored by experienced radiation oncologists. However, we were unable to evaluate interobserver variability. Therefore, future studies need to prospectively confirm our findings and assess interobserver variations.

Conclusion

In inoperable stage III NSCLC, despite the prognostic value of the ECOG PS before multimodal treatment, ECOG PS after completion of CRT as well as its change during treatment application have a strong prognostic impact on patient OS and EFS.

Footnotes

  • Authors' Contributions

    L.K., J.T., C.E., O.R., M.D., K.G., M.K., O.P., A.T., C.B. and F.M. contributed to the design and implementation of the research, L.K., J.T., C.E. and O.R. to the analysis of the results and L.K., J.T., C.E., O.R., and F.M. to the writing of the article.

  • The data were partly presented at the ESTRO and ELCC congress 2019.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest with regard to this work.

  • Received July 3, 2019.
  • Revision received July 14, 2019.
  • Accepted July 16, 2019.
  • Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A
    : Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 69(1): 7-34, 2019. PMID: 30620402. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21551
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Soerjomataram I,
    3. Dikshit R,
    4. Eser S,
    5. Mathers C,
    6. Rebelo M,
    7. Parkin DM,
    8. Forman D,
    9. Bray F
    : Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136(1): E359-E386, 2015. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29210
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Ettinger DS,
    2. Aisner DL,
    3. Wood DE,
    4. Akerley W,
    5. Bauman J,
    6. Chang JY,
    7. Chirieac LR,
    8. D'Amico TA,
    9. Dilling TJ,
    10. Dobelbower M,
    11. Govindan R,
    12. Gubens MA,
    13. Hennon M,
    14. Horn L,
    15. Lackner RP,
    16. Lanuti M,
    17. Leal TA,
    18. Lilenbaum R,
    19. Lin J,
    20. Loo BW,
    21. Martins R,
    22. Otterson GA,
    23. Patel SP,
    24. Reckamp K,
    25. Riely GJ,
    26. Schild SE,
    27. Shapiro TA,
    28. Stevenson J,
    29. Swanson SJ,
    30. Tauer K,
    31. Yang SC,
    32. Gregory K,
    33. Hughes M
    : NCCN guidelines insights: non-small cell lung cancer, version 5.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16(7): 807-821, 2018. PMID: 30006423. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018. 0062
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Postmus P,
    2. Kerr K,
    3. Oudkerk M,
    4. Senan S,
    5. Waller D,
    6. Vansteenkiste J,
    7. Escriu C,
    8. Peters S
    : Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 28(suppl_4): iv1-iv21, 2017. PMID: 28881918. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx222
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Fujimoto J,
    2. Wistuba II
    : Current concepts on the molecular pathology of non-small cell lung carcinoma. Semin Diagn Pathol 31(4): 306-313, 2014. PMID: 25239274. DOI: 10.1053/j.semdp. 2014.06.008
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Rami-Porta R,
    2. Asamura H,
    3. Travis WD,
    4. Rusch VW
    : Lung cancer – major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Cancer Staging Manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67(2): 138-155, 2017. PMID: 28140453. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21390
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Collins JT,
    2. Noble S,
    3. Davies HE,
    4. Farewell D,
    5. Lester JF,
    6. Parry D,
    7. Byrne A
    : Performance status agreement assessed by the patient and clinician in a rapid access lung cancer service: Can either predict completion of treatment? Eur J Cancer Care 28(3): e13004, 2019. PMID: 30761639. DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13004
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Kaesmann L,
    2. Janssen S,
    3. Rades D
    : Karnofsky performance score, radiation dose and nodal status predict survival of elderly patients irradiated for limited-disease smallcell lung cancer. Anticancer Res 36(8): 4177-4180, 2016. PMID: 27466528
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kaesmann L,
    2. Janssen S,
    3. Rades D
    : Prognostic factors including the expression of thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF1) in patients irradiated for limited-disease small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res 36(7): 3499-3503, 2016. PMID: 27354614.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Janssen S,
    2. Van Oorschot B,
    3. Käsmann L,
    4. Schild SE,
    5. Rades D
    : Validation of a score developed to estimate the 6-month survival of patients treated with palliative local radiotherapy for advanced lung cancer. Anticancer Res 37(7): 2537-2540, 2017. PMID: 27354614.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Bolm L,
    2. Janssen S,
    3. Kaesmann L,
    4. Wellner U,
    5. Bartscht T,
    6. Schild SE,
    7. Rades D
    : Predicting survival after irradiation of metastases from pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res 35(7): 4105-4108, 2015. PMID: 26124362.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. O'Rourke N,
    2. Roqué I,
    3. Figuls M,
    4. Bernadó NF,
    5. Macbeth F
    : Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(6): CD002140, 2010. PMID: 20556756. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002140.pub3
  11. ↵
    1. Antonia SJ,
    2. Villegas A,
    3. Daniel D,
    4. Vicente D,
    5. Murakami S,
    6. Hui R,
    7. Kurata T,
    8. Chiappori A,
    9. Lee KH,
    10. de Wit M,
    11. Cho BC,
    12. Bourhaba M,
    13. Quantin X,
    14. Tokito T,
    15. Mekhail T,
    16. Planchard D,
    17. Kim YC,
    18. Karapetis CS,
    19. Hiret S,
    20. Ostoros G,
    21. Kubota K,
    22. Gray JE,
    23. Paz-Ares L,
    24. de Castro Carpeño J,
    25. Faivre-Finn C,
    26. Reck M,
    27. Vansteenkiste J,
    28. Spigel DR,
    29. Wadsworth C,
    30. Melillo G,
    31. Taboada M,
    32. Dennis PA,
    33. Özgüroğlu M
    : Overall survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC. N Engl J Med 379(24): 2342-2350, 2018. PMID: 30280658. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809697
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Mirsadraee S,
    2. Oswal D,
    3. Alizadeh Y,
    4. Caulo A,
    5. van Beek EJ
    : The 7th Lung Cancer TNM Classification and Staging System: Review of the changes and implications. World J Radiol 4(4): 128, 2012. PMID: 22590666. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v4.i4.128
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Oken MM,
    2. Creech RH,
    3. Tormey DC,
    4. Horton J,
    5. Davis TE,
    6. Mcfadden ET,
    7. Carbone PP
    : Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5(6): 649-656, 1982. PMID: 7165009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. MacLeod CM
    1. Karnofsky DA,
    2. Burchenal JH
    : The Clinical Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents in Cancer. In: New York, Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. MacLeod CM (ed.). Columbia University Press, pp. 196-196, 1949.
  15. ↵
    1. Carey M,
    2. Bacon M,
    3. Tu D,
    4. Butler L,
    5. Bezjak A,
    6. Stuart G
    : The prognostic effects of performance status and quality of life scores on progression-free survival and overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 108(1): 100-105, 2008. PMID: 17920108. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.08.088
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Moningi S,
    2. Walker AJ,
    3. Hsu CC,
    4. Reese JB,
    5. Wang J-Y,
    6. Fan KY,
    7. Rosati LM,
    8. Laheru DA,
    9. Weiss MJ,
    10. Wolfgang CL,
    11. Pawlik TM,
    12. Herman JM
    : Correlation of clinical stage and performance status with quality of life in patients seen in a pancreas multidisciplinary clinic. J Oncol Pract 11(2): e216-e221, 2015. PMID: 2556370. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2014.000976
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Buccheri G,
    2. Ferrigno D,
    3. Tamburini M
    : Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: A prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer 32(7): 1135-1141, 1996. PMID: 8758243.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Sargent DJ,
    2. Köhne CH,
    3. Sanoff HK,
    4. Bot BM,
    5. Seymour MT,
    6. De Gramont A,
    7. Porschen R,
    8. Saltz LB,
    9. Rougier P,
    10. Tournigand C,
    11. Douillard JY,
    12. Stephens RJ,
    13. Grothey A,
    14. Goldberg RM
    : Pooled safety and efficacy analysis examining the effect of performance status on outcomes in nine first-line treatment trials using individual data from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(12): 1948, 2009. PMID: 19255311. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.2879
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 39 (9)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 39, Issue 9
September 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Performance Status and Its Changes Predict Outcome for Patients With Inoperable Stage III NSCLC Undergoing Multimodal Treatment
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Performance Status and Its Changes Predict Outcome for Patients With Inoperable Stage III NSCLC Undergoing Multimodal Treatment
LUKAS KÄSMANN, JULIAN TAUGNER, CHUKWUKA EZE, OLARN ROENGVORAPHOJ, MAURICE DANTES, KATHRIN GENNEN, MONIKA KARIN, OLEG PETRUKHNOV, AMANDA TUFMAN, CLAUS BELKA, FARKHAD MANAPOV
Anticancer Research Sep 2019, 39 (9) 5077-5081; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13701

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Performance Status and Its Changes Predict Outcome for Patients With Inoperable Stage III NSCLC Undergoing Multimodal Treatment
LUKAS KÄSMANN, JULIAN TAUGNER, CHUKWUKA EZE, OLARN ROENGVORAPHOJ, MAURICE DANTES, KATHRIN GENNEN, MONIKA KARIN, OLEG PETRUKHNOV, AMANDA TUFMAN, CLAUS BELKA, FARKHAD MANAPOV
Anticancer Research Sep 2019, 39 (9) 5077-5081; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13701
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • New developments in locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Predictive and Prognostic Value of SUOX Expression in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
  • Liberal Application of Portal Vein Embolization for Right Hepatectomy Against Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Strategy to Achieve Zero Mortality for a Damaged Liver
  • Pancreaticoenterostomy With Seromuscular-parenchymal Anastomosis for Prevention of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula in Distal Pancreatectomy
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • NSCLC
  • chemoradiotherapy
  • survival
  • prognostic factor
  • ECOG
Anticancer Research

© 2022 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire