the use of the chuang′s prognostic scale to predict the survival of metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving palliative systemic anticancer therapy

Clicks: 267
ID: 220665
2016
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #22 of 41 articles by views in Öneri

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background: With the increasing number of agents active against cancer, advanced cancer patients including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients may continue receiving palliative systemic anticancer therapy (PSAT) near the end-of-life. Validated palliative prognostic models, such as the Chuang′s prognostic scale (CPS), may be helpful in identifying mCRC patients with limited survival who are unlikely to benefit from PSAT. Aim: To test the ability of the CPS to predict the survival of mCRC under treatment with PSAT. Methods: CPS was prospectively assessed in 36 mCRC patients who were receiving PSAT. The scale is based on eight items: ascites, edema, cognitive impairment, liver and lung metastases, performance status, tiredness, and weight loss. The total CPS score ranges from 0 to 8.5 with the higher score indicating worse prognosis. Results: Patients were divided into two groups using a CPS cutoff score of 5, Group 1 with a CPS score ≤5 and Group 2 with a CPS score >5. Using this cutoff value, 3-month mortality was predicted with a positive predictive value of 71%, a negative predictive value of 77%, a sensitivity of 67%, a specificity of 81% and an overall accuracy of 75%. Group 1 patients had a longer median survival of 149 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82-216) in comparison to Group 2 patients who had a median survival of 61 days (95% CI: 35-87). The difference in survival was statistically significant (P = 0.01). Conclusion: CPS may be useful in identifying mCRC patients with limited survival who are unlikely to benefit from PSAT.
Reference Key
alsirafy2016indianthe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Samy A Alsirafy;Omar Zaki;Amr Y Sakr;Dina E Farag;Wessam A El-Sherief;Abha A Mohammed
Journal Öneri
Year 2016
DOI
10.4103/0973-1075.185043
URL
http://www.jpalliativecare.com/article.asp?issn=0973-1075;year=2016;volume=22;issue=3;spage=312;epage=316;aulast=Alsirafy
Keywords
end-of-life care prognosismedicine (general)

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.