Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Prognostication in Gastroesophageal Cancer: Results of a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) are self-reflections of an individual's physical functioning and emotional well-being. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a simple and validated PRO tool of 10 common symptoms and a patient-reported functional status (PRFS) measure. The prognostic value of this tool is unknown in patients with gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). In this study, we examined the association between the ESAS score and overall survival (OS) in patients with GEC, the prognostication difference between ESAS and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and assessed the correlation between PRFS and the physician-reported ECOG performance status (PS). METHODS: The study was a retrospective cohort study of 211 patients with GEC with localized (stages I-III) and metastatic disease who completed at least one baseline ESAS prior to treatment. Patients were grouped into 3 cohorts based on ESAS score. OS was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the concordance index (c-index) was calculated for ESAS and physician-reported ECOG. The agreement between PRFS and physician-ECOG was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 211 patients were included. The median age was 60.8 years; 90% of patients were ECOG PS 0-1; 38% of patients were stages I-III, while 62% were de novo metastatic patients. Median OS in low, moderate, high symptom burden (SB) patients' cohorts was 19.17 m, 16.39 mm, and 12.68 m, respectively (P < .04). The ability to predict death was similar between physician-ECOG and ESAS (c-index 0.56 and 0.5753, respectively) and PRFS and physician-ECOG (c-index of 0.5615 and 0.5545, respectively). The PS agreement between patients and physicians was 50% with a weighted Kappa of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.17-0.38). CONCLUSION: Patient's SB seems to carry a prognostic significance. ESAS and physician-reported ECOG exhibit comparable prognostic values. Physicians and patients can frequently have divergent opinions on PS. ESAS takes a patient-centered approach and should be encouraged in practice among patients with GEC as an additional tool for prognostication.

Activated protein C: cost-effective or costly?

The authors offer a commentary on the study by Dhainaut et al. on the cost-effectiveness of activated protein C in severe sepsis. Using data from "real world" conditions, the results of this economic evaluation are consistent with previous analyses, and highlight the need for "real world" investigations of new health technologies in critical care.