Expansion of the LabBM Score: Is the LabPS the Best Tool Predicting Survival in Patients With Brain Metastases?

Carsten Nieder, Rosalba Yobuta, Bård Mannsåker
{"title":"Expansion of the LabBM Score: Is the LabPS the Best Tool Predicting Survival in Patients With Brain Metastases?","authors":"Carsten Nieder,&nbsp;Rosalba Yobuta,&nbsp;Bård Mannsåker","doi":"10.1097/COC.0000000000000784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study were to improve the 3-tiered, purely biomarker-based LabBM score, which predicts the survival of patients with brain metastases, by adding the well-established prognostic factor performance status (PS), and to define its role in comparison with the recently proposed Extracranial-Graded Prognostic Assessment score, which is based on the well-known Diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment and 2 of the same biomarkers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective single-institution analysis of 212 patients, managed with upfront brain irradiation. Survival was stratified by LabBM and LabPS score. Each included serum hemoglobin, platelets, albumin, C-reactive protein, and lactate dehydrogenase (plus PS for the LabPS). Zero, 0.5, or 1 point was assigned and the final point sum calculated. A higher point sum indicates shorter survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The new LabPS score predicted overall survival very well (median: 12.1 to 0.7 mo, 1-y rate: 52% to 0%), P=0.0001. However, the group with the poorest prognosis (3 or 3.5 points) was very small (4%). Most patients with comparably short survival had a lower point sum. The LabPS score failed to outperform the recently proposed Extracranial-Graded Prognostic Assessment score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integration of blood biomarkers should be considered when attempting to develop improved scores. Additional research is needed to improve the tools which predict short survival, because many of these patients continue to go undetected with all available scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":501816,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"53-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study were to improve the 3-tiered, purely biomarker-based LabBM score, which predicts the survival of patients with brain metastases, by adding the well-established prognostic factor performance status (PS), and to define its role in comparison with the recently proposed Extracranial-Graded Prognostic Assessment score, which is based on the well-known Diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment and 2 of the same biomarkers.

Materials and methods: This was a retrospective single-institution analysis of 212 patients, managed with upfront brain irradiation. Survival was stratified by LabBM and LabPS score. Each included serum hemoglobin, platelets, albumin, C-reactive protein, and lactate dehydrogenase (plus PS for the LabPS). Zero, 0.5, or 1 point was assigned and the final point sum calculated. A higher point sum indicates shorter survival.

Results: The new LabPS score predicted overall survival very well (median: 12.1 to 0.7 mo, 1-y rate: 52% to 0%), P=0.0001. However, the group with the poorest prognosis (3 or 3.5 points) was very small (4%). Most patients with comparably short survival had a lower point sum. The LabPS score failed to outperform the recently proposed Extracranial-Graded Prognostic Assessment score.

Conclusions: Integration of blood biomarkers should be considered when attempting to develop improved scores. Additional research is needed to improve the tools which predict short survival, because many of these patients continue to go undetected with all available scores.

扩大LabBM评分:LabPS是预测脑转移患者生存的最佳工具吗?
目的:本研究的目的是通过添加已建立的预后因素表现状态(PS)来改进纯基于生物标志物的3层LabBM评分,该评分预测脑转移患者的生存,并与最近提出的颅外分级预后评估评分(基于众所周知的诊断特异性分级预后评估和2种相同的生物标志物)进行比较,确定其作用。材料和方法:这是一项对212例患者进行回顾性单机构分析的研究,这些患者接受了脑前放射治疗。通过LabBM和LabPS评分对生存进行分层。每种包括血清血红蛋白、血小板、白蛋白、c反应蛋白和乳酸脱氢酶(加上PS为LabPS)。分配0、0.5或1分,并计算最终的积分总和。点数和越高,生存时间越短。结果:新的LabPS评分很好地预测了总生存期(中位数:12.1至0.7个月,1-y率:52%至0%),P=0.0001。然而,预后最差(3分或3.5分)的群体极少(4%)。大多数生存期相对较短的患者的积分和较低。LabPS评分未能优于最近提出的颅外分级预后评估评分。结论:在试图提高评分时应考虑整合血液生物标志物。需要进一步的研究来改进预测短期生存的工具,因为这些患者中的许多人在所有可用的评分中仍然未被发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信