Lactate dehydrogenase: relationship with the diagnostic GLIM criterion for cachexia in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although suggestive of dysregulated metabolism, the relationship between serum LDH level, phenotypic/aetiologic diagnostic Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria and survival in patients with advanced cancer has yet to examined. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from patients with advanced cancer, undergoing anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, across nine sites in the UK and Ireland between 2011-2016, was retrospectively analysed. LDH values were grouped as <250/250-500/>500 Units/L. Relationships were examined using χ2 test for linear-by-linear association and binary logistics regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 436 patients met the inclusion criteria. 46% (n = 200) were male and 59% (n = 259) were ≥65 years of age. The median serum LDH was 394 Units/L and 33.5% (n = 146) had an LDH > 500 Units/L. LDH was significantly associated with ECOG-PS (p < 0.001), NLR (p < 0.05), mGPS (p < 0.05) and 3-month survival (p < 0.001). LDH was significantly associated with 3-month survival independent of weight loss (p < 0.01), BMI (p < 0.05), skeletal muscle mass (p < 0.01), metastatic disease (p < 0.05), NLR (p < 0.05) and mGPS (p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: LDH was associated with performance status, systemic inflammation and survival in patients with advanced cancer. LDH measurement may be considered as an aetiologic criteria and become a potential therapeutic target in the treatment of cancer cachexia.

Prognostic Tools in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: In 2005, the European Association for Palliative Care made recommendations for prognostic markers in advanced cancer. Since then, prognostic tools have been developed, evolved, and validated. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the progress in the development and validation of prognostic tools. METHODS: Medline, Embase Classic and Embase were searched. Eligible studies met the following criteria: patients with incurable cancer, >18 years, original studies, population n ≥100, and published after 2003. Descriptive and quantitative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were eligible, assessing seven prognostic tools across different care settings, primary cancer types, and statistically assessed survival prediction. The Palliative Performance Scale was the most studied (n = 21,082), comprising six parameters (six subjective), was externally validated, and predicted survival. The Palliative Prognostic Score composed of six parameters (four subjective and two objective), the Palliative Prognostic Index composed of nine parameters (nine subjective), and the Glasgow Prognostic Score composed of two parameters (two objective) and were all externally validated in more than 2000 patients with advanced cancer and predicted survival. CONCLUSION: Various prognostic tools have been validated but vary in their complexity, subjectivity, and therefore clinical utility. The Glasgow Prognostic Score would seem the most favorable as it uses only two parameters (both objective) and has prognostic value complementary to the gold standard measure, which is performance status. Further studies comparing all proved prognostic markers in a single cohort of patients with advanced cancer are needed to determine the optimal prognostic tool.

Prognosis in advanced lung cancer--A prospective study examining key clinicopathological factors.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with advanced incurable lung cancer deciding as to the most appropriate treatment (e.g., chemotherapy or supportive care only) is challenging. In such patients the TNM classification system has reached its ceiling therefore other factors are used to assess prognosis and as such, guide treatment. Performance status (PS), weight loss and inflammatory biomarkers (Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS)) predict survival in advanced lung cancer however these have not been compared. This study compares key prognostic factors in advanced lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced lung cancer were recruited and demographics, weight loss, other prognostic factors (mGPS, PS) were collected. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to compare these prognostic factors. RESULTS: 390 patients with advanced incurable lung cancer were recruited; 341 were male, median age was 66 years (IQR 59-73) and patients had stage IV non-small cell (n=288) (73.8%) or extensive stage small cell lung cancer (n=102) (26.2%). The median survival was 7.8 months. On multivariate analysis only performance status (HR 1.74 CI 1.50-2.02) and mGPS (HR 1.67, CI 1.40-2.00) predicted survival (p<0.001). Survival at 3 months ranged from 99% (ECOG 0-1) to 74% (ECOG 2) and using mGPS, from 99% (mGPS0) to 71% (mGPS2). In combination, survival ranged from 99% (mGPS 0, ECOG 0-1) to 33% (mGPS2, ECOG 3). CONCLUSION: Performance status and the mGPS are superior prognostic factors in advanced lung cancer. In combination, these improved survival prediction compared with either alone.

Clinical management of pain in advanced lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world and pain is its most common symptom. Pain can be brought about by several different causes including local effects of the tumor, regional or distant spread of the tumor, or from anti-cancer treatment. Patients with lung cancer experience more symptom distress than patients with other types of cancer. Symptoms such as pain may be associated with worsening of other symptoms and may affect quality of life. Pain management adheres to the principles set out by the World Health Organization's analgesic ladder along with adjuvant analgesics. As pain can be caused by multiple factors, its treatment requires pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures from a multidisciplinary team linked in with specialist palliative pain management. This review article examines pain management in lung cancer.