Page 57 - TD-4-3

Tumor Discovery Prognostication in palliative cancer care

were each dichotomized into scores of ≤3 (mild symptom Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics
intensities) and scores of ≥4 (higher symptom intensities), Characteristic Sample %
and survival was computed accordingly for patients with
mild and higher symptom intensities. 8,26,28 Age (median, range) 73 (29 – 92)
In accordance with ESMO guidance, patients were Gender
categorized based on survival time after admission into Male 99 67.3
days (0 – 13 days), weeks (14 – 55 days), or months Female 48 32.7
(≥56 days), with respect to care trajectories, ECOG PS Cancer diagnosis
categories, mGPS classes, and symptom intensity levels Gastrointestinal 66 44.9
assessed for the study. Patients with ECOG PS 3 surviving Breast 10 6.8
6
months or longer, and patients with PS 2 surviving only Prostate 22 15.0
weeks, were further studied with respect to biomarkers of
systemic inflammatory responses. Other urological 15 10.2
Other 34 23.1
Due to the non-normal distribution of data, non- Metastases
parametric tests were used for group survival comparisons.
Medians were used as the measure of central tendency, Yes 131 89.1
and range as the measure of dispersion. The Mann– No 16 10.9
Whitney U test was used for comparisons between two Survival in days (median, range) 52 (3 – 708)
independent groups, while the Kruskal–Wallis test was Care trajectory
used for comparisons involving more than two groups. Ongoing anti-cancer treatment 57 38.8
To investigate which pairs that were different, the Dunn Palliative care alone 89 60.5
procedure was performed. p≤0.05 were considered Missing 1 0.7
statistically significant.
ECOG PS
All calculations were conducted using STATA v17 1 15 10.2
(Stata Corporation LP; College Station, TX, USA). 2 55 37.4
2.5. Ethics 3 69 46.9
The Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics, 4 8 5.4
Health Region Central Norway (REK) (2018/925/REK mGPS
midt and 2021/212312/REK midt) defined the primary 0 24 16.3
study and secondary analyses as healthcare improvement 1 75 51.0
activities. In accordance with Norwegian health care 2 48 32.7
legislation, explicit informed consent was not needed. Abbreviations: ECOG PS: Eastern cooperative oncology group
performance status; mGPS: Modified glasgow prognostic score.
3. Results
3.1. Demographics 3.2. PS and survival
Altogether, 195 readmissions among 451 hospitalizations At admission, 15 patients (10.2%) were categorized as ECOG
were excluded from the study. Of the 256 unique patients, PS 1, 55 (37.4%) as PS 2, 69 (46.9%) as PS 3, and 8 (5.4%) as
147 had recorded registrations of ECOG PS, CRP, albumin, PS 4. Survival after admission for patients in each category
and self-reported symptom registrations for tiredness, is described in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 2. Median
appetite, well-being, drowsiness, and dyspnea at admission. survival varied across groups, with no statistically significant
These 147 patients were included in the current analysis and difference observed between patients with ECOG PS 1 and
their characteristics are presented in Table 1. The median PS 2. The range for survival also varied and was largest for
age was 73 years, 67.3% were males, gastrointestinal and patients with PS 2. Except for those with PS 4, all categories
urological cancers were the most common diagnoses, included patients who survived almost 1 year or more. All
89.1% had metastatic disease, and 38.8% received anti- categories also included patients who survived <1 month.
cancer treatment. Median overall survival was 52 days
(range 3 – 708 days), with significantly longer median 3.3. Biomarkers and survival
survival observed in those receiving anti-cancer treatment At admission, 24 patients (16.3%) were scored as mGPS 0,
(Tables 1 and 2, Figure 1). 75 (51.0%) as mGPS 1, and 48 (32.7%) as mGPS 2. Survival

Volume 4 Issue 3 (2025) 49 doi: 10.36922/td.8576