Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 12;1(1):100016.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2020.100016. eCollection 2020 Mar.

Development and Validation of a Simplified Prognostic Score in SCLC

Elodie Negre  1 , Amandine Coffy  2 , Alexandra Langlais  3 , Jean-Pierre Daures  2 , Armelle Lavole  4 , Elisabeth Quoix  5 , Olivier Molinier  6 , Laurent Greillier  7 , Clarisse Audigier-Valette  8 , Denis Moro-Sibilot  9 , Virginie Westeel  10 , Franck Morin  3 , Benoît Roch  1   11 , Jean-Louis Pujol  1   11
Affiliations

Development and Validation of a Simplified Prognostic Score in SCLC

Elodie Negre et al. JTO Clin Res Rep. .

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed at generating a new simplified prognostic score (SPS) using common clinical and biological variables to discriminate a limited number of subgroups of patients with SCLC differing by their overall survival (OS).

Methods: The SPS was developed exploring the Montpellier University Hospital retrospective database of 401 patients over a 16-year period. All patients had received etoposide - platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment. The SPS development took into account significant determinants of OS in the Cox model, weighted by their regression β coefficients. Validation of the consequent SPS has been done separately in a combined population of 213 patients accrued from two different published trials (NCT03059667 and NCT00930891).

Results: The significant independent determinants of OS included the following: (1) American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM stage IV (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.91-3.33); (2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status greater than 1 (HR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.79-2.87); (3) the presence of liver metastases (HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.29-2.15); and (4) neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio greater than 4 (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.11-1.92). The SPS generated with these four variables, segregated three groups (good, intermediate, and poor prognosis) with respective median OS of 26.9 months (95% CI: 20.1-38.9), 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.8-13.0), and 6.8 months (95% CI: 5.8-8.3; log-rank p < 10-4). Harrell's C statistic estimate was 0.68 ± 0.012, suggesting goodness of calibration. In the validation cohort, the SPS segregated the aforementioned three subgroups in a nearly similar manner, with respective median OS: 27.2, 12.3, and 8.6 months (log-rank p < 10-3; Harrell's C statistic: 0.58 ± 0.02).

Conclusions: The SPS is easy to calculate in real-life practice and efficiently discriminates three populations with different prognoses. This study deserves further validation of this score in patients with SCLC receiving immunochemotherapy.

Keywords: Chemotherapy; Prognosis; Prognostic score; Serum markers; Small cell lung cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival according to patients’ subgroups defined by the primary score in the development cohort (log-rank: p < 0.01)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival according to patients’ subgroups defined by the simplified prognostic score in the development cohort: group I: good prognosis (score 0 or 0.5); group II: intermediate prognosis (scores 1, 1.5, or 2); group III: poor prognosis (score 2.5 or 3). (A) Development cohort (log-rank: p < 0.01); (B) validation cohort (log-rank: p < 10-4).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier estimate of progression-free survival according to patients’ subgroups defined by the simplified prognostic score in the development cohort: group I: good prognosis (score 0 or 0.5); group II: intermediate prognosis (scores 1, 1.5, or 2); group III: poor prognosis (score 2.5 or 3).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arriagada R., Le Chevalier T., Pignon J.P. Initial chemotherapeutic doses and survival in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1848–1852. - PubMed
    1. Pujol J.L., Breton J.L., Gervais R. Phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled study of thalidomide in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer after response to chemotherapy: an intergroup study FNCLCC cleo04 IFCT 00-01. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3945–3951. - PubMed
    1. Spigel D.R., Townley P.M., Waterhouse D.M. Randomized phase II study of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy in previously untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: results from the SALUTE trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2215–2222. - PubMed
    1. Ready N.E., Pang H.H., Gu L. Chemotherapy with or without maintenance sunitinib for untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II study-CALGB 30504 (alliance) J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1660–1665. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Morgensztern D., Besse B., Greillier L. Efficacy and safety of rovalpituzumab tesirine in third-line and beyond patients with DLL3-expressing, relapsed/refractory small-cell lung cancer: results from the phase II TRINITY study. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:6958–6966. - PMC - PubMed

Associated data