Patient-Reported Outcomes for Determining Prognostic Groups in Veterans With Advanced Cancer.

CONTEXT: Physicians overestimate survival in patients with advanced cancer. Patient-reported outcomes could provide another way to estimate survival. We previously reported four prognostic groups based on Karnofsky Performance Status, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy physical well-being subscale, and Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form physical symptom distress subscale scores. OBJECTIVES: To determine the validity of these four prognostic groups. METHODS: We performed prospective surveys. Data from a total of 880 Veterans Affairs Medical Center patients, 417 in the First Cohort and 463 in the Validation Cohort, were analyzed. Both inpatients and outpatients were prospectively recruited in Institutional Review Board-approved studies from August 1999 to September 2009. Survival was measured from the date of entry until death or December 1, 2009. Patients completed self-assessments with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form. Analysis of variance was used to test differences between groups in continuous variables; a generalized Wilcoxon test was used for differences between groups for survival. RESULTS: The average age in the Validation Cohort was 66.5 years and 98% were men. The majority of patients had metastatic cancer (90%), with lung (28%) and prostate (26%) cancers being predominant. The median Karnofsky Performance Status was 70. Median survival was 33, 46.5, 124, and 209.5 days for the four prognostic groups (P < 0.0001, all pair-wise comparisons P < 0.02). CONCLUSION: The four prognostic groups remained distinct in the prospective cohort. Small differences in patient-reported physical well-being can halve survival estimates. Patient-reported outcomes can correct for physician overestimate of prognosis. This study provides a way to use patient-reported outcomes for prognosis in patients with advanced cancer, with important implications for assessment.

Phase I study of flavopiridol in combination with Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating doses of flavopiridol/ paclitaxel/carboplatin in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as well as the pharmacokinetics and activity of flavopiridol when used in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients aged 18-75 years with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC received paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours followed by carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 over 1 hour and flavopiridol 30-85 mg/m2 over 24 hours every 3 weeks for 3 cycles. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled at 4 sites in the United States and received flavopiridol 30 mg/m2 (n = 3), 50 mg/m2 (n = 6), 70 mg/m2 (n = 3), or 85 mg/m2 (n = 6). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred at the 50-mg/m2 or 70-mg/m2 dose levels. Two patients treated at the 85-mg/m2 dose level experienced cardiovascular events that did not meet the criteria for DLT but were fatal in 1 case, prompting no further flavopiridol dose escalations and establishment of 70 mg/m2 as the maximum tolerated dose. The most frequently reported adverse events across all dose levels combined were nausea (89%), asthenia (67%), and diarrhea (56%). Flavopiridol concentrations increased rapidly, reached a plateau, and showed a multiphasic decline after the 24-hour infusion. Of 12 patients evaluable for efficacy, 8 achieved a partial response, and 4 had stable disease. CONCLUSION: Flavopiridol in doses

Memorial symptom assessment scale.

Patients with advanced illnesses often have multiple symptoms. As interest in palliative care and interventions for symptom control increase, the ability to assess multiple symptoms has become more important. A number of instruments have been developed to meet this need in cancer patients. This article reviews the development and applications of a multidimensional instrument, the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale has 32 symptoms and three dimensions of frequency, severity, and distress. Shorter versions - The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (32 symptoms with one dimension) and the Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (14 symptoms with one dimension), and a version for children aged 7-12 years, have also been developed. A distinctive feature is the summary subscales for physical distress, psychological distress, and The Global Distress Index. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale has proven useful in description of symptom epidemiology, the role of symptoms in pain, fatigue, and spirituality; as a predictor of survival, and in proxy assessments of pain. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale has been used in studies of cancer and AIDS patients, and patients with advanced medical illnesses. Possible future roles of instruments such as the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale include use in clinical trials, for pharmacoeconomic analyses, definition of symptom clusters and symptom burden, the development of symptom outcome measures, symptom monitoring, and improving care for patients. Continued research is needed for the versions of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale and other symptom instruments in different populations and applications.

A comparison of three fatigue measures in veterans with cancer.

Fatigue is a highly prevalent and distressing symptom in cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of three fatigue measures [the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Fatigue Subscale (FACT-F), and the lack of energy item from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF)] and compare these measures in relation to broader quality-of-life (QOL) constructs and clinical factors in veteran cancer patients. One-hundred-eighty cancer patients completed the BFI, FACT-F, FACT-G, MSAS-SF, and the Zung depression scale with concurrent Karnofsky performance status (KPS), laboratory tests, and demographic data. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was from 0.93 to 0.94 for BFI fatigue scales and 0.94 for FACT-F. There were significant correlations between BFI subscales, FACT-F, and lack of energy from MSAS-SF (p < 0.0001). All three fatigue measures showed significant correlation with MSAS-SF symptom subscales (p < 0.0001), FACT-G subscales (p < 0.0001), depression (p < 0.0001), KPS (p < 0.0001), inpatient status (P < 0.0001), insomnia (p < 0.05), hemoglobin (p < 0.05), and albumin levels (p < 0.01). Distress from lack of energy discriminated among levels from the BFI, FACT-F, and FACT-G subscales and MSAS-SF subsclea by one-way of variance analysis. Patient responses to BFI, FACT-F, and the lack of energy item yielded similar information about broader QOL constructs and clinical factors. Single questions about lack of energy, or fatigue severity, may provide a simple and acceptable way to assess fatigue.

Clinical relevance of fatigue levels in cancer patients at a Veterans Administration Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: The correlation of fatigue levels with functional interference, symptom distress, and quality of life may help determine clinically significant fatigue levels. METHODS: One hundred eighty consecutive patients with cancer completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) General and Fatigue subscales (FACT-G and FACT-F, respectively), the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form (MSAS-SF), the Depression Scale (Zung), and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). The Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was determined for each patient. Multivariate analyses of variance were performed to compare fatigue models with different cut-off points to categorize fatigue levels. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to assess the association between fatigue severity and survival. RESULTS: Increased fatigue levels were associated with greater symptom distress and decreased quality of life. A model with usual fatigue cut-off points of 0 (no fatigue), 1-2 (mild fatigue), 3-6 (moderate fatigue), and 7-10 (severe fatigue) was optimal in relation to functional interference items (Wilks lambda, 0.36; F = 11.61; P < 0.0001), symptom distress scores (Wilks lambda, 0.52; F = 10.41; P < 0.0001), and quality-of-life scores (Wilks lambda, 0.50; F = 0.50; P < 0.0001). Fatigue severity predicted survival in univariate analysis (chi-square test, 25.42; P < 0.0001). The KPS, stage of disease, and number of symptoms independently predicted survival in patients with fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant fatigue levels are correlated with symptom and quality-of-life measurements. Patients with a usual fatigue severity > 3 or a worst fatigue severity > 4 on a 1-10 scale may require further assessment.