Accuracy and Prognostic Significance of Oncologists' Estimates and Scenarios for Survival Time in Advanced Gastric Cancer.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Agents
/ therapeutic use
Female
Humans
Life Expectancy
Male
Middle Aged
Oncologists
/ statistics & numerical data
Phenylurea Compounds
/ therapeutic use
Prognosis
Proportional Hazards Models
Pyridines
/ therapeutic use
Stomach Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Survival Rate
Estimating survival times
Prognosis in gastric cancer
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2019
11 2019
Historique:
received:
20
09
2018
accepted:
01
03
2019
pubmed:
3
4
2019
medline:
2
7
2020
entrez:
3
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival, based on simple multiples of an individual's expected survival time (EST), estimated by their oncologist, are a useful way of formulating and explaining prognosis. We aimed to determine the accuracy and prognostic significance of oncologists' estimates of EST, and the accuracy of the resulting scenarios for survival time, in advanced gastric cancer. Sixty-six oncologists estimated the EST at baseline for each of the 152 participants they enrolled in the INTEGRATE trial. We hypothesized that oncologists' estimates of EST would be unbiased (∼50% would be longer or shorter than the observed survival time [OST]); imprecise (<33% within 0.67-1.33 times the OST); independently predictive of overall survival (OS); and accurate at deriving scenarios for survival time with approximately 10% of patients dying within a quarter of their EST (worst-case scenario), 50% living within half to double their EST (typical scenario), and 10% living three or more times their EST (best-case scenario). Oncologists' estimates of EST were unbiased (45% were shorter than the OST, 55% were longer); imprecise (29% were within 0.67-1.33 times observed); moderately discriminative (Harrell's C-statistic 0.62, Oncologists' estimates of EST were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of OS. Simple multiples of the EST accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer. Results of this study demonstrate that oncologists' estimates of expected survival time for their patients with advanced gastric cancer were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of overall survival. Simple multiples of the expected survival time accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival, based on simple multiples of an individual's expected survival time (EST), estimated by their oncologist, are a useful way of formulating and explaining prognosis. We aimed to determine the accuracy and prognostic significance of oncologists' estimates of EST, and the accuracy of the resulting scenarios for survival time, in advanced gastric cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixty-six oncologists estimated the EST at baseline for each of the 152 participants they enrolled in the INTEGRATE trial. We hypothesized that oncologists' estimates of EST would be unbiased (∼50% would be longer or shorter than the observed survival time [OST]); imprecise (<33% within 0.67-1.33 times the OST); independently predictive of overall survival (OS); and accurate at deriving scenarios for survival time with approximately 10% of patients dying within a quarter of their EST (worst-case scenario), 50% living within half to double their EST (typical scenario), and 10% living three or more times their EST (best-case scenario).
RESULTS
Oncologists' estimates of EST were unbiased (45% were shorter than the OST, 55% were longer); imprecise (29% were within 0.67-1.33 times observed); moderately discriminative (Harrell's C-statistic 0.62,
CONCLUSION
Oncologists' estimates of EST were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of OS. Simple multiples of the EST accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Results of this study demonstrate that oncologists' estimates of expected survival time for their patients with advanced gastric cancer were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of overall survival. Simple multiples of the expected survival time accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30936377
pii: theoncologist.2018-0613
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0613
pmc: PMC6853097
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Phenylurea Compounds
0
Pyridines
0
regorafenib
24T2A1DOYB
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1102-e1107Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb 1;29(4):456-63
pubmed: 21189397
Eur J Cancer. 2000 Oct;36(16):2036-43
pubmed: 11044639
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb;21(2):369-76
pubmed: 22717918
Br J Cancer. 2006 Jan 30;94(2):208-12
pubmed: 16404420
Gastric Cancer. 2018 May;21(3):473-480
pubmed: 28815316
Curr Oncol. 2014 Apr;21(2):84-90
pubmed: 24764697
Stat Med. 1996 Feb 28;15(4):361-87
pubmed: 8668867
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 29;8:CD004064
pubmed: 28850174
BMJ. 2003 Jul 26;327(7408):195-8
pubmed: 12881260
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 10;34(23):2728-35
pubmed: 27325864
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 1;25(22):3313-20
pubmed: 17664480
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2011 Jun;2(2):77-84
pubmed: 22811834
BMJ. 2000 Feb 19;320(7233):469-72
pubmed: 10678857
Ann Oncol. 2013 Dec;24(12):3056-60
pubmed: 24121120
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Oct 1;31(28):3565-71
pubmed: 24002504