Predictors and trajectory of performance status in patients with advanced cancer: A secondary data analysis of the international European Palliative Care Cancer Symptom study

Jason W Boland, Victoria Allgar, Elaine G Boland, Stein Kaasa, Marianne J Hjermstad, Miriam J Johnson, Jason W Boland, Victoria Allgar, Elaine G Boland, Stein Kaasa, Marianne J Hjermstad, Miriam J Johnson

Abstract

Background:: Performance status, a predictor of cancer survival, and ability to maintain independent living deteriorate in advanced disease. Understanding predictors of performance status trajectory could help identify those at risk of functional deterioration, target support for independent living and reduce service costs. The relationship between symptoms, analgesics and performance status is poorly delineated.

Aim:: The aim of this study is to determine whether demographics, analgesics, disease characteristics, quality-of-life domains and C-reactive protein predict the trajectory of Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) in patients with advanced cancer.

Design:: The study design is the secondary data analysis of the international prospective, longitudinal European Palliative Care Cancer Symptom study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01362816). A multivariable regression model was built for KPS area under the curve per day (AUC).

Setting and participants:: This included adults with advanced, incurable cancer receiving palliative care, without severe cognitive impairment and who were not imminently dying (n = 1739).

Results:: The mean daily KPS AUC (n = 1052) was 41.1 (standard deviation = 14.1). Opioids (p < 0.001), co-analgesics (p = 0.023), poorer physical functioning (p < 0.001) and appetite loss (p = 0.009) at baseline were explanatory factors for lower KPS AUC. A subgroup analysis of participants with C-reactive protein data (n = 240) showed that only C-reactive protein (p = 0.040) and physical function (p < 0.001) were associated with lower KPS AUC.

Conclusion:: This study is novel in determining explanatory factors for subsequent functional trajectories in an international dataset and identifying systemic inflammation as a candidate therapeutic target to improve functional performance. The effect of interventions targeting physical function, appetite and inflammation, such as those used for cachexia management, on maintaining functional status in patients with advanced cancer needs to be investigated.

Keywords: Karnofsky Performance Status; analgesics; appetite; inflammation; neoplasms; opioids.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

    1. Yamada T, Morita T, Maeda I, et al. A prospective, multicenter cohort study to validate a simple performance status-based survival prediction system for oncologists. Cancer 2016; 123: 1442–1452.
    1. Verweij NM, Schiphorst AH, Pronk A, et al. Physical performance measures for predicting outcome in cancer patients: a systematic review. Acta Oncol 2016; 55: 1386–1391.
    1. Ferrat E, Paillaud E, Laurent M, et al. Predictors of 1-year mortality in a prospective cohort of elderly patients with cancer. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2015; 70: 1148–1155.
    1. Laird BJ, Kaasa S, McMillan DC, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer: a comparison of clinicopathological factors and the development of an inflammation-based prognostic system. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 5456–5464.
    1. Jang RW, Caraiscos VB, Swami N, et al. Simple prognostic model for patients with advanced cancer based on performance status. J Oncol Pract 2014; 10: e335–e341.
    1. Steinhauser KE, Christakis NA, Clipp EC, et al. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA 2000; 284: 2476–2482.
    1. Spoozak L, Seow H, Liu Y, et al. Performance status and symptom scores of women with gynecologic cancer at the end of life. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013; 23: 971–978.
    1. Sutradhar R, Atzema C, Seow H, et al. Is performance status associated with symptom scores? A population-based longitudinal study among cancer outpatients. J Palliat Care 2014; 30: 99–107.
    1. Smyth EN, Shen W, Bowman L, et al. Patient-reported pain and other quality of life domains as prognostic factors for survival in a phase III clinical trial of patients with advanced breast cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016; 14: 52.
    1. Downing M, Lau F, Lesperance M, et al. Meta-analysis of survival prediction with Palliative Performance Scale. J Palliat Care 2007; 23: 245–252; discussion 252–254.
    1. Lau F, Downing M, Lesperance M, et al. Using the Palliative Performance Scale to provide meaningful survival estimates. J Pain Symptom Manage 2009; 38: 134–144.
    1. Abernethy AP, Currow DC, Shelby-James T, et al. Delivery strategies to optimize resource utilization and performance status for patients with advanced life-limiting illness: results from the ‘palliative care trial’ [ISRCTN 81117481]. J Pain Symptom Manage 2013; 45: 488–505.
    1. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 187–193.
    1. Amano K, Maeda I, Morita T, et al. C-reactive protein, symptoms and activity of daily living in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017; 8: 457–465.
    1. Hjermstad MJ, Aass N, Aielli F, et al. Characteristics of the case mix, organisation and delivery in cancer palliative care: a challenge for good-quality research. BMJ Support Palliat Care. Epub ahead of print 31 May 2016. DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2015-000997.
    1. Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, et al. The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 55–64.
    1. Matthews JN, Altman DG, Campbell MJ, et al. Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ 1990; 300: 230–235.
    1. Laird BJ, Scott AC, Colvin LA, et al. Cancer pain and its relationship to systemic inflammation: an exploratory study. Pain 2011; 152: 460–463.
    1. Al-Mazidi S, Farhat K, Nedjadi T, et al. Association of interleukin-6 and other cytokines with self-reported pain in prostate cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Pain Med 2018; 19: 1058–1066.
    1. Loumaye A, Thissen JP. Biomarkers of cancer cachexia. Clin Biochem 2017; 50: 1281–1288.
    1. Vazeille C, Jouinot A, Durand JP, et al. Relation between hypermetabolism, cachexia, and survival in cancer patients: a prospective study in 390 cancer patients before initiation of anticancer therapy. Am J Clin Nutr 2017; 105: 1139–1147.
    1. Gould DW, Lahart I, Carmichael AR, et al. Cancer cachexia prevention via physical exercise: molecular mechanisms. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2013; 4: 111–124.
    1. Parmar MP, Vanderbyl BL, Kanbalian M, et al. A multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for cancer cachexia improves quality of life. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2017; 7: 441–449.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться