Abstract
PurposeIn this single institution retrospective study of patients with stage I medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) we attempt to model overall survival (OS) using initial prognostic variables with specific attention on the Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI). MethodsBetween 2008 and 2013, 335 patients with medically inoperable stage I NSCLC were treated with SABR or hypofractionated radiotherapy (50–60Gy in at least 5Gy or 4Gy fractions respectively) at our institution. Medical comorbidities and Charlson scores were determined by individual chart review. Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on the CCI score (0–1, 2–3, 4–9) and again based on the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity score (aCCI). Cumulative survival for each stratum was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Non-significant and confounding variables were identified and discounted from survival modeling. 3 sex stratified Cox regression models were tested: (1) aCCI with age and comorbidity combined; (2) age and CCI; (3) age alone, comorbidity removed. ResultsThe median survival was 4.4years and the median follow up 4.7years. The median CCI and aCCI scores were 2 and 5 respectively. Patients with aCCI 7–12 had an increased hazard of death on univariate analysis HR 2.45 (1.15–5.22 95%CI, p=0.02) and -excluding age as a competing variable- on multivariate analysis HR 2.25 (1.04–4.84 95%CI, p=0.04). Patients with CCI 4-9 had an increased hazard of death on univariate analysis HR 1.57(1.30–2.90) but not on multivariate analysis. On formalized testing – with either continuous or categorical variables- all three survival models yielded similar coefficients of effect. ConclusionWe identify male gender, weight loss greater than 10% and age as independent prognostic factors for patients treated with medically inoperable NSCLC treated with SABR or hypofractionated radiotherapy. Based on our survival models, age alone can be used interchangeably with aCCI or CCI plus age with the same prognostic value. Age is more reliably recorded, less prone to error and therefore a more useful metric than Charlson score in this group of patients.
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.