The NEAT Predictive Model for Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Amanda Zucker; Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; John Loscalzo; Pedro Calves; Johnny Kao

doi:10.4143/crt.2017.223

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 50(4); 2018 > Article

Original Article The NEAT Predictive Model for Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Amanda Zucker, BA^1,2,, Chiaojung Jillian Tsai, MD, PhD³, John Loscalzo, MD⁴, Pedro Calves, MD⁵, Johnny Kao, MD¹; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2018;50(4):1433-1443.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.223
Published online: January 24, 2018

¹Department of Radiation Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA

²New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY, USA

³Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

⁴Divisions of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA

⁵Divisions of Supportive and Palliative Care, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, West Islip, NY, USA

Correspondence: Amanda Zucker, BA Department of Radiation Oncology, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center, 1000 Montauk Highway, West Islip, NY 11795, USA
Tel: 1-631-376-4047 Fax: 1-631-376-3392 E-mail: azucker20@gmail.com

• Received: May 9, 2017 • Accepted: January 23, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

8,254 Views
181 Download
23 Web of Science
18 Crossref
23 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Purpose
We previously developed a model to more accurately predict life expectancy for stage IV cancer patients referred to radiation oncology. The goals of this study are to validate this model and to compare competing published models.
Materials and Methods
From May 2012 to March 2015, 280 consecutive patientswith stage IV cancerwere prospectively evaluated by a single radiation oncologist. Patients were separated into training, validation and combined sets. TheNEAT model evaluated number of active tumors (“N”), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (“E”), albumin (“A”) and primary tumor site (“T”). The Odette Cancer Center model validated performance status, bone only metastases and primary tumor site. The Harvard TEACHH model investigated primary tumor type, performance status, age, prior chemotherapy courses, liver metastases, and hospitalization within 3 months. Cox multivariable analyses and logisticalregressionwere utilized to compare model performance.
Results
Number of active tumors, performance status, albumin, primary tumor site, prior hospitalizationwithin the last 3 months, and liver metastases predicted overall survival on uinvariate and multivariable analysis (p < 0.05 for all). The NEAT model separated patients into four prognostic groups with median survivals of 24.9, 14.8, 4.0, and 1.2 months, respectively (p < 0.001). The NEAT model had a C-index of 0.76 with a Nagelkerke’s R2 of 0.54 suggesting good discrimination, calibration and total performance compared to competing prognostic models.
Conclusion
The NEAT model warrants further investigation as a clinically useful approach to predict survival in patients with stage IV cancer.
Key words: Life expectancy, Radiation oncology, Prognosis

Introduction

Radiation therapy is a cost-effective and time efficient treatment to control pain, neurologic symptoms and obstructive symptoms from advanced cancer that can achieve local control of tumors in any organ system [1]. It is now well accepted that clinician intuition and experience alone is inadequate to accurately predict survival for stage IV cancer, with physicians typically overestimating survival [2-4]. There is significant interest in developing a more accurate model to predict survival for radiation oncology patients with stage IV cancer [5-7]. An accurate estimate of survival is important for patients to inform treatment decisions and to initiate endof-life planning and timely palliative care consultation [8]. Inaccurate survival prognostication can result in the patients receiving high intensity cancer care towards the end of life [9,10].

A model developed at Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center separated patients with stage IV cancer into four prognostic groups using four prognostic factors that were found to be significant predictors of overall survival [5]. The acronym NEAT describes these factors: number of active tumors (“N”), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (“E”), serum albumin (“A”), and primary tumor type (“T”). Four groups were identified with median survivals ranging from 1.2 months, 4.1 months, 14.5 months, and >31.4 months. The TEACHH model developed at Harvard Medical School divided incurable cancer patients into three life expectancy groups using type of cancer, performance status, age, prior palliative chemotherapy, prior hospitalizations, and hepatic metastases [7]. The three groups had median survivals of 1.7 months, 5 months, and 19.9 months, respectively. A third model developed at Odette Cancer Center in Toronto separated patients with advanced cancer into three groups using performance status, primary tumor type and site of metastases [6]. The three groups had survivals of 2.1 months, 6.0 months, and 13.8 months. Despite extensive research, there is no current consensus on the optimal approach to develop an accurate prognosis for patients with stage IV cancer.

The objectives of the current study were to (1) validate the results of the Good Samaritan model using a temporal validation set and (2) to evaluate the relative performance of the Good Samaritan model compared to the Odette Cancer Center and Harvard TEACHH models.

Materials and Methods

1. Inclusion criteria

This study included 280 consecutive patients older than 18 years with metastatic stage IV solid tumor who were referred to a single physician in a large community hospital-based radiation oncology department between May 2012 and March 2015. Since 45 patients did not have a recent serum albumin available, the analysis was limited to 235 patients. The first 116 analyzed patients were evaluated between May 2012 and August 2013 and represented the training cohort. The subsequent 119 analyzed patients were evaluated between September 2013 and March 2015 and represented the validation cohort.

2. Data collection

The charts of all patients were assessed for previously validated prognostic factors including performance status (ECOG 0 to 1 vs. ECOG 2 vs. ECOG 3-4), primary tumor type (breast, prostate, kidney, lung or other), number of tumors (1 to 5 vs. ≥ 6), serum albumin (≥ 3.4 g/dL vs. 2.4 to 3.3 g/dL vs. ≤ 2.4 g/dL), location of metastases (bone only vs. liver vs. other), age (> 60 vs. ≤ 60), hospitalization within the past 3 months (0 vs. ≥ 1), and prior palliative chemotherapy courses (≥ 2 vs. 0-1). The calculations of risk groups using the Good Samaritan NEAT, Odette Cancer Center, and Harvard TEACHH models are shown in Table 1.

3. Statistical methodology

Statistical analysis was performed with Stata ver. 13 (StataCorp., College Station, TX). The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as time from initial radiation oncology consultation to date of death. Patients who were lost to follow-up were censored at the date of last follow-up. Survival data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and summarized by median and 6-month survival. Chi-square tests were performed to determine differences in categorical variables between cohorts. Differences in survival were assessed through the log-rank method. The multivariable analyses were performed by Cox proportional hazards models and verified by tests of correlations over time with examination of residual plots. The ability of various models to predict 6-month survival was analyzed using logistical regression. Patients who were lost to follow-up with less than 6-month follow-up were excluded from the logistical regression. Statistical tests were two sided and p-values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

The three prognostic models were assessed using the performance measures discrimination, calibration and overall performance [11]. Predictive discrimination is the probability of concordance between predicted and observed survival. Predictive discrimination is measured by the Harrell’s C index with 0.5-0.59 indicating poor, 0.6-0.69 indicating moderate, 0.7-0.79 indicating good, 0.8-0.89 indicating very good, and > 0.9 indicating excellent discrimination [12,13]. The C indices of various models were compared using the techniques described by Newson [14]. Calibration quantifies whether the observed outcomes and predicted probabilities agree. For calibration < 10% point difference between predicted and observed mortality is considered a well calibrated model [13]. Overall performance of various prediction models is the distance between predicted outcome and actual outcome and is measured by Nagelkerke’s R2 from a logistical regression [11].

4. Ethical statement

This minimal risk study was approved by the Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center Institutional Review Board with waiver of informed consent.

Results

1. Training and temporal validation sets

The characteristics of the 116 patients in the training cohort and 119 in the validation are summarized in Table 2. There were differences between the populations with respect to primary tumor site, performance status, age and frequency of bone only metastases.

Median survival was 4.1 months in the training cohort (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 5.8) and 6.7 months in the validation cohort (95% CI, 4.4 to 10.1) (p=0.07). The median overall survival for the entire cohort was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 6.6) with a median follow-up for surviving patients of 20.7 months (95% CI, 8.5 to 26.1) (Fig. 1).

All four components of the NEAT model, including number of tumors, ECOG performance status, serum albumin and primary tumor site predicted survival on both univariate and Cox multivariable analysis (Table 3). For the Odette Cancer Center model, primary tumor site and Karnofsky performance status were predictive on univariate and Cox multivariable analysis but bone only metastasis was not predictive (Table 3). With respect to the TEACHH model, primary tumor site, ECOG performance status, prior hospitalization within the last 3 months and liver metastases predicted survival on both univariate and Cox multivariable analysis (Table 3). However, age and extent of prior palliative chemotherapy were not predictive.

2. Training cohort

In the training group, Good Samaritan NEAT model divided the patients into four distinct groups with median survivals of 37.5, 14.8, 4.0, and 1.2 months, respectively (p < 0.01). The Odette Cancer Center model separated the patients into three groups with median survivals of 37.5, 12.7, and 2.2 months (p < 0.01). The Harvard TEACHH model divided the patients into three groups with median survivals of 25.0, 4.8, and 1.2 months (p < 0.01). In all cases, there was good visual agreement between the estimated survival from the Cox model compared to actual outcome estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method (Fig. 2A-C).

3. Temporal validation cohort

In the temporal validation cohort, the Good Samaritan NEAT model identified four distinct groups of patients with median survivals of 19.7, 14.9, 4.3, and 0.9 months (p < 0.01). The Odette Cancer Center model separated patients into groups with median survivals of 10.4, 9.2, and 3.0 months (p < 0.01). The Harvard TEACHH model divided patients into three groups with median survivals of 16.5, 6.8, and 1.8 months (p < 0.01). There remained good visual agreement between predicted and observed survival in all three models (Fig. 2D-F).

4. Combined analysis of all patients

In the combined dataset, the NEAT model separated patients into four prognostic groups with median survivals of 24.9, 14.8, 4.0, and 1.2 months, respectively (Fig. 3A). The Odette Cancer Center model divided patients into three prognostic groups with median survivals of 16.4, 12.4, and 2.6 months, respectively (Fig. 3B). The Harvard TEACHH model identified cohorts with median survivals of 25.0, 5.7, and 1.6 months, respectively (Fig. 3C).

5. Comparing performance of models developed at Good Samaritan, Odette Cancer Center, and Harvard

The C indices for the Good Samaritan NEAT model were 0.76, 0.75, and 0.76 for the training, validation and combined sets (Table 4). The corresponding C indices for the Odette Cancer Center model were 0.67, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively for the training, validation and combined groups. Finally, the C indices for the Harvard TEACHH model were 0.59, 0.60, and 0.60, respectively for the training, validation and combined groups. In all groups, the C indices were significantly higher for the Good Samaritan NEAT model than the Odette Cancer Center or Harvard TEACHH models (p < 0.01 for all).

The calibration of the Good Samaritan NEAT model was good, with close agreement between the observed 6-month mortality rates in the low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk groups. The Odette Cancer Center model had comparable mortality rates for risk groups 2 and 3. The TEACHH model showed similar mortality rates for risk group A.

Finally, in the combined group the Nagelkerke’s R2 for predicting 6-month survival was 0.54 for the Good Samaritan NEAT model compared to 0.30 for the Odette Cancer Center model and 0.16 for the Harvard TEACHH model.

Discussion

Approximately 20% to 40% of patients treated in radiation oncology departments have metastatic cancer requiring radiotherapy [7]. Patients with stage IV cancer referred to radiation oncology are heterogeneous ranging from the actively dying with survival measured in days to patients with asymptomatic oligometastases who may achieve longterm remission [15-17]. We previously developed a robust model that separated patients into four distinct groups with markedly different life expectancies [5]. In the training, validation and combined cohorts, the Good Samaritan NEAT model performed well compared to previously published models evaluating radiation oncology patients with metastatic cancer.

There is significant focus in the literature on preventing overtreatment of poor prognosis patients [18]. Conversely, accurate identification of better prognosis patients may prompt the treating physician to consider treatment intensification to improve disease-free survival and even overall survival [19-21]. Broader use of predictive models may allow for personalized treatment consistent with patient’s needs, values and preferences [1].

There is a robust literature on estimating life expectancy for terminally ill cancer patients seen in inpatient medical oncology, palliative care and hospice units who were no longer candidates for treatment [7,22]. Site-specific prognostic factors for brain metastases, spinal cord compression and bone metastases are particularly useful for subspecialists with practice focused on a specific organ site [23-25]. For the practicing general radiation oncologist, the ideal prognostic model would account for both poor and favorable prognosis patients in multiple clinical contexts over diverse cancer types [1]. The Good Samaritan NEAT model accounts for tumor histology and tumor burden to accurately predict survival for patients with longer life expectancy while strongly weighting both performance status and albumin for patients with short life expectancy.

While performance status and primary tumor are also included in other radiation oncology predictive models, there is significant divergence in other prognostic factors. After analyzing 29 prognostic factors, the Good Samaritan NEAT model identified serum albumin and number of active tumors as novel predictors of survival in radiation oncology patients [5]. For oncology patients, albumin is an objective measure of anorexia-cachexia syndrome and malnutrition that is widely available on comprehensive metabolic panels [26]. Additionally, hypoalbuminemia can also reflect physiologic causes of third spacing, inflammation and sepsis that may be associated with poor prognosis. Oligometastases are defined as one to five distant metastases that are potentially amenable to involved site radiation to all areas of known disease [16,17,27]. Although the exact number of dominant masses and pathologic lymph nodes is not always specified on radiology reports, radiation oncologists have extensive experience with reviewing recent computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and bone scans and can readily quantify number of tumors through electronic medical records and picture archiving and communication systems. Interestingly, performance status, extent of active disease and intake are key elements of the Palliative Performance Scale, which is widely used in palliative medicine to predict survival [28]. The NEAT model further refines and extends the Palliative Performance Scale by quantifying the relative contribution of performance status, extent of active disease, intake and primary tumor site on prognosis.

In community practice, the Good Samaritan NEAT model appeared to have a higher C-index and Nagelkerke’s R2 than the Odette Cancer Center and Harvard TEACHH models. In this study, differences in model performance were driven by variables other than performance status and primary tumor site (Table 3). The NEAT model included number of tumors and albumin as variables that strongly predicted survival on multivariable analysis. The TEACHH model included age and extent of prior palliative chemotherapy and the Odette Cancer Center included bone only metastases that were not statistically significant on multivariable analysis.

The Good Samaritan NEAT model was developed in the community hospital setting and may not be generalizable to major academic medical centers where the Odette Cancer Center and Harvard TEACCH models were developed. The Odette Cancer Center study included 33% of patients with bone only metastases compared to 14% in the current dataset. While these clearly reflect differences in practice patterns the causes is unclear. One might speculate that 64% of the patients in the Odette Cancer Center study were patients from a novel Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program treated in 1999 to 2000 that affected referral patterns to increase utilization of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases that would otherwise be treated with systemic therapy alone in other settings. The Harvard TEACHH dataset included 45% of patients who were 60 years of age or younger compared to 23% in the current dataset. The Harvard TEACHH patient population included 17% patients that were treated with > 2 prior palliative chemotherapy courses compared to 11% in this dataset. From these data, one can infer that patients in community practice tend to be older and may be less likely to receive greater than second-line chemotherapy than a major academic center with an extensive cancer clinical trial program. Further development of the NEAT model and other predictive models for stage IV cancer require external validation in diverse community and academic settings.

A limitation of the NEAT model is that a small minority of stage IV patients do not have recent albumin or extent of disease imaging available. If these tests have not been ordered, patients can still be evaluated with alternate models. Finally, currently available predictive models can only explain a modest percentage of observed survival due to the effect of unmeasured patient-specific prognostic factors. In the future, biomarkers and measures of antitumor immunity will supplement currently available clinical, radiologic, laboratory and pathologic prognostic factors to further refine existing models [29,30]. Although the accuracy of experienced clinicians in making unsupervised predictions in cancer is poor, the role of clinical intuition to further improve algorithmdefined predictions in a complex system such as oncology is worthy of investigation for both clinicians and data scientists.

NOTES

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Fig. 1.

Cumulative survival curve of the combined cohort.

Fig. 2.

Survival probability based on groups according to the NEAT model (A), Odette Cancer Center model (B), and TEACHH model (C) developed from the training cohort. Survival probability based on groups according to the NEAT model (D), Odette Cancer Center model (E), and TEACHH model (F) developed from the validation cohort. Survival estimated using the Cox’s model (dashed lines) and the actual survival calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method (solid lines) are shown.

Fig. 3.

Overall survival based on groups according to the NEAT model (A), Odette Cancer Center model (B), and TEACHH model (C) developed from the combined cohort.

Table 1.

Risk group calculations by previously identified models

Variable
NEAT model
No. of tumors	Points
1-5	0
> 5	1
ECOG performance
0-1	0
2	1
3-4	2
Albumin (g/dL)
≥ 3.4	0
2.4-3.3	0.5
< 2.4	1
Primary tumor site
Breast, kidney, prostate	0
Other	1
Composite score	Group
0-1	Very low risk
1.5-2	Low risk
2.5-3.5	Intermediate risk
4-5	High risk
Odette Cancer Center model	Risk factor score
Primary tumor site
Breast	0
Nonbreast	1
Metastasis location
Bone only	0
Other than bone only	1
KPS
> 60	0
≤ 60	1
No. of risk factors	Group
0 to 1	1
2	2
3	3
TEACHH model	Risk factor score
Primary tumor site
Breast, prostate	0
Lung, other	1
ECOG performance
0-1	0
2-4	1
Age (yr)
≤ 60	0
> 60	1
No. of prior palliative chemotherapy courses
0-2	0
> 2	1
Prior hospitalizations within the last 3 mo
No	0
Yes	1
Liver metastasis
No	0
Yes	1
No. of risk factors score	Group
0 to 1	A
2 to 4	B
5 to 6	C

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Table 2.

Patient characteristics

	Training set (n=116)	Validation set (n=119)	p-value
NEAT model
No. of tumors
1-5	32 (28)	34 (29)	0.867
≥ 6	84 (72)	85 (71)
ECOG performance
0-1	31 (27)	49 (41)	0.01
2	34 (29)	39 (33)
3-4	51 (44)	31 (26)
Albumin
≥ 3.4	54 (47)	58 (49)	0.479
2.4-3.3	52 (45)	46 (39)
< 2.4	10 (9)	15 (13)
Primary tumor site
Breast, kidney, prostate	16 (14)	33 (28)	< 0.001
Other	100 (86)	86 (72)
Odette Cancer Center model
Primary tumor site
Breast	7 (6)	19 (16)	0.015
Nonbreast	109 (94)	100 (84)
Metastasis location
Bone only	8 (7)	26 (22)	0.001
Other than bone only	108 (93)	93 (78)
KPS
> 60	31 (27)	49 (41)	0.019
≤ 60	85 (73)	70 (59)
TEACHH model
Primary tumor site
Breast, prostate	11 (9)	30 (25)	0.001
Lung, other	105 (91)	89 (75)
ECOG performance
0-1	31 (27)	49 (41)	0.019
2-4	85 (73)	70 (59)
Age (yr)
≤ 60	33 (28)	21 (18)	0.049
> 60	83 (72)	98 (82)
No. of prior palliative chemotherapy courses
0-2	103 (89)	106 (89)	0.945
> 2	13 (11)	13 (11)
Prior hospitalizations within the last 3 mo
0	28 (24)	38 (32)	0.184
≥ 1	88 (76)	81 (68)
Liver metastasis
No	93 (80)	92 (77)	0.592
Yes	23 (20)	27 (23)

Values are presented as number (%). ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Table 3.

Univariate and multivariate analysis of predictors of overall survival for each model (n=235)

	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis
	p-value	HR	95% Confidence interval	p-value
NEAT mode
No. of active tumors (1 to 5 vs. ≥ 6)	< 0.001	3.27	2.26 to 4.75	< 0.001
ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2 vs. 3-4)	< 0.001	2.29	1.85 to 2.84	< 0.001
Serum albumin (≥ 3.4 vs. 2.4-3.3 vs. < 2.4)	< 0.001	1.59	1.28 to 1.98	< 0.001
Primary tumor site (breast, kidney, or prostate vs. other)	0.004	3.10	2.06 to 4.68	< 0.001
Odette Cancer Center model
Primary tumor site (breast vs. nonbreast)	0.004	1.90	1.13 to 3.19	0.015
Metastasis location (bone only vs. other)	0.147	1.15	0.75 to 1.76	0.523
KPS (> 60 vs. ≤ 60)	< 0.001	3.22	2.32 to 4.45	< 0.001
TEACHH model
Primary tumor site (breast and prostate vs. lung and other)	0.025	2.00	1.28 to 3.14	0.002
ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2-4)	< 0.001	2.91	2.07 to 4.09	< 0.001
Age (≤ 60 yr vs. > 60 yr)	0.160	1.17	0.83 to 1.66	0.374
No. of prior palliative chemotherapy courses (0-1 vs. ≥ 2)	0.423	1.46	0.91 to 2.34	0.114
Prior hospitalizations within the last 3 mo (0 vs. ≥ 1)	< 0.001	1.46	1.02 to 2.08	0.038
Liver metastasis (no vs. yes)	< 0.001	1.49	1.04 to 2.12	0.028

HR, hazard ratio; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Table 4.

Comparing model performance

	6-Month mortality (95% confidence interval)
	Training (n=116)	Validation (n=119)	Combined (n=235)
NEAT risk group
Very low risk	0 (0-21)	14 (3-34)	8 (2-21)
Low risk	18 (4-43)	15 (4-34)	16 (7-30)
Intermediate risk	70 (54-83)	70 (53-83)	70 (59-79)
High risk	95 (83-99)	90 (68-99)	93 (84-98)
C index	0.76	0.75	0.76
Nagelkerke R²	0.61	0.45	0.54
Odette Cancer Center risk group
1	0 (0-52)	22 (6-48)	17 (5-39)
2	31 (16-48)	33 (20-48)	32 (22-43)
3	80 (69-88)	77 (61-88)	79 (70-86)
C index	0.67	0.64	0.66
Nagelkerke R²	0.35	0.24	0.30
TEACHH risk group
A	14 (0-58)	10 (0-44)	12 (1-36)
B	60 (49-70)	46 (35-58)	54 (46-61)
C	88 (62-98)	68 (59-98)	87 (70-96)
C index	0.59	0.60	0.60
Nagelkerke R²	0.13	0.18	0.16

REFERENCES

1. Jones JA, Lutz ST, Chow E, Johnstone PA. Palliative radiotherapy at the end of life: a critical review. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:296–310. Article PubMed
2. Lamont EB, Christakis NA. Complexities in prognostication in advanced cancer: "to help them live their lives the way they want to". JAMA. 2003;290:98–104. Article PubMed
3. Chow E, Davis L, Panzarella T, Hayter C, Szumacher E, Loblaw A, et al. Accuracy of survival prediction by palliative radiation oncologists. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61:870–3. Article PubMed
4. Hartsell WF, Desilvio M, Bruner DW, Scarantino C, Ivker R, Roach M 3rd, et al. Can physicians accurately predict survival time in patients with metastatic cancer? Analysis of RTOG 97-14. J Palliat Med. 2008;11:723–8. Article PubMed
5. Kao J, Gold KD, Zarrili G, Copel E, Silverman AJ, Ramsaran SS, et al. Clinical predictors of survival for patients with stage IV cancer referred to radiation oncology. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124329Article PubMed PMC
6. Chow E, Abdolell M, Panzarella T, Harris K, Bezjak A, Warde P, et al. Predictive model for survival in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5863–9. Article PubMed
7. Krishnan MS, Epstein-Peterson Z, Chen YH, Tseng YD, Wright AA, Temel JS, et al. Predicting life expectancy in patients with metastatic cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy: the TEACHH model. Cancer. 2014;120:134–41. Article PubMed
8. Mack JW, Cronin A, Taback N, Huskamp HA, Keating NL, Malin JL, et al. End-of-life care discussions among patients with advanced cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:204–10. Article PubMed PMC
9. Morden NE, Chang CH, Jacobson JO, Berke EM, Bynum JP, Murray KM, et al. End-of-life care for medicare beneficiaries with cancer is highly intensive overall and varies widely. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:786–96. Article PubMed PMC
10. Baek SK, Chang HJ, Byun JM, Han JJ, Heo DS. The association between end-of-life care and the time interval between provision of a do-not-resuscitate consent and death in cancer patients in Korea. Cancer Res Treat. 2017;49:502–8. Article PubMed PDF
11. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010;21:128–38. Article PubMed PMC
12. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–87. Article PubMed
13. Yourman LC, Lee SJ, Schonberg MA, Widera EW, Smith AK. Prognostic indices for older adults: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307:182–92. Article PubMed PMC
14. Newson RB. Comparing the predictive powers of survival models using Harrell's C or Somers' D. Stata J. 2010;10:339–58. Article
15. Mulvenna P, Nankivell M, Barton R, Faivre-Finn C, Wilson P, McColl E, et al. Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2004–14. Article PubMed PMC
16. Milano MT, Katz AW, Zhang H, Okunieff P. Oligometastases treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy: long-term followup of prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:878–86. Article PubMed
17. Salama JK, Hasselle MD, Chmura SJ, Malik R, Mehta N, Yenice KM, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for multisite extracranial oligometastases: final report of a dose escalation trial in patients with 1 to 5 sites of metastatic disease. Cancer. 2012;118:2962–70. Article PubMed
18. Gripp S, Mjartan S, Boelke E, Willers R. Palliative radiotherapy tailored to life expectancy in end-stage cancer patients: reality or myth? Cancer. 2010;116:3251–6. Article PubMed
19. Koshy M, Malik R, Mahmood U, Rusthoven CG, Sher DJ. Comparative effectiveness of aggressive thoracic radiation therapy and concurrent chemoradiation therapy in metastatic lung cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5:374–82. Article PubMed
20. Gomez DR, Blumenschein GR Jr, Lee JJ, Hernandez M, Ye R, Camidge DR, et al. Local consolidative therapy versus maintenance therapy or observation for patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without progression after first-line systemic therapy: a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1672–82. Article PubMed PMC
21. Kao J, Chen CT, Tong CC, Packer SH, Schwartz M, Chen SH, et al. Concurrent sunitinib and stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with oligometastases: final report of a prospective clinical trial. Target Oncol. 2014;9:145–53. Article PubMed
22. Feliu J, Jimenez-Gordo AM, Madero R, Rodriguez-Aizcorbe JR, Espinosa E, Castro J, et al. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for terminally ill cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1613–20. Article PubMed PDF
23. Sperduto PW, Chao ST, Sneed PK, Luo X, Suh J, Roberge D, et al. Diagnosis-specific prognostic factors, indexes, and treatment outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a multi-institutional analysis of 4,259 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:655–61. Article PubMed
24. Rades D, Fehlauer F, Schulte R, Veninga T, Stalpers LJ, Basic H, et al. Prognostic factors for local control and survival after radiotherapy of metastatic spinal cord compression. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3388–93. Article PubMed
25. Chow E, James JL, Hartsell W, Scarantino CW, Ivker R, Roach M, et al. Validation of a predictive model for survival in patients with advanced cancer: secondary analysis of RTOG 9714. World J Oncol. 2011;2:181–90. PubMed PMC
26. Inui A. Cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome: current issues in research and management. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:72–91. Article PubMed
27. Kao J, Packer S, Vu HL, Schwartz ME, Sung MW, Stock RG, et al. Phase 1 study of concurrent sunitinib and image-guided radiotherapy followed by maintenance sunitinib for patients with oligometastases: acute toxicity and preliminary response. Cancer. 2009;115:3571–80. Article PubMed PMC
28. Anderson F, Downing GM, Hill J, Casorso L, Lerch N. Palliative performance scale (PPS): a new tool. J Palliat Care. 1996;12:5–11. Article
29. Sperduto PW, Yang TJ, Beal K, Pan H, Brown PD, Bangdiwala A, et al. Estimating survival in patients with lung cancer and brain metastases: an update of the graded prognostic assessment for lung cancer using molecular markers (Lung-mol-GPA). JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:827–31. Article PubMed
30. Chen HM, Ma G, Gildener-Leapman N, Eisenstein S, Coakley BA, Ozao J, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as an immune parameter in patients with concurrent sunitinib and stereotactic body radiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:4073–85. Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Nutritional care pathways in cancer patients with malignant bowel obstruction: A retrospective multi-centre study
Pinal S. Patel, Konstantinos Fragkos, Niamh Keane, David Wilkinson, Amy Johnson, Derek Chan, Bradley Roberts, Penny Neild, Metin Yalcin, Philip Allan, Michael E.B. FitzPatrick, Michael Gomez, Sarah Williams, Klaartje Kok, Lisa Sharkey, Carla Swift, Shamee
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN.2024; 59: 118. CrossRef
Predicting long‑term survival following involved site radiotherapy for oligometastases
Johnny Kao, Patricia Eckardt, Jennifer Mceachron, Christopher Atalla, Ashish Sangal
Oncology Letters.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Palliative radiotherapy: survival prognostic factors - single-centre retrospective cohort study
Sian Cooper, Mary Denholm, Abdul Shawal Malek, Jeffrey Arun Rubasingham, David Tsang
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care.2024; : spcare-2024-004810. CrossRef
Thirty‐day mortality after palliative radiotherapy in advanced cancer patients: Optimizing end‐of‐life care in Asia
Mi Sun Kim, Hyejung Cha, Sei Hwan You, Sunghyun Kim
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology.2024; 68(3): 307. CrossRef
Palliative Appropriateness Criteria: A Pragmatic Method to Evaluate the Suitability of Palliative Radiotherapy Fractionation
Joshua C. Farris, Adam G. Johnson, Patrick P. Carriere, Zachary A. Patel, Moeko Nagatsuka, Michael K. Farris, Ryan T. Hughes
Journal of Palliative Medicine.2023; 26(1): 67. CrossRef
The LabPS score
Carsten Nieder, Ellinor C. Haukland, Bård Mannsåker, Astrid Dalhaug
American Journal of Clinical Oncology.2023; 46(4): 178. CrossRef
Long-term disease-free survival following comprehensive involved site radiotherapy for oligometastases
Johnny Kao, Michelle Sahagian, Vani Gupta, Symeon Missios, Ashish Sangal
Frontiers in Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Defining the expected 30-day mortality for patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy: A meta-analysis
Justin Henry Kutzko, Parvati Dadwal, Tanya Holt, Muhammed Aashiq Rahman, Syeda Farah Zahir, Brigid Hickey
Radiotherapy and Oncology.2022; 168: 147. CrossRef
Risk Stratification for Imminent Risk of Death at the Time of Palliative Radiotherapy Consultation
Susan Y. Wu, Emily Yee, Harish N. Vasudevan, Shannon E. Fogh, Lauren Boreta, Steve E. Braunstein, Julian C. Hong
JAMA Network Open.2021; 4(7): e2115641. CrossRef
Advances in radiotherapy in bone metastases in the context of new target therapies and ablative alternatives: A critical review
André G. Gouveia, Dominic C.W. Chan, Peter J. Hoskin, Gustavo N. Marta, Fabio Trippa, Ernesto Maranzano, Edward Chow, Mauricio F. Silva
Radiotherapy and Oncology.2021; 163: 55. CrossRef
Early and Midtreatment Mortality in Palliative Radiotherapy: Emphasizing Patient Selection in High-Quality End-of-Life Care
Matthew S. Ning, Prajnan Das, David I. Rosenthal, Bouthaina S. Dabaja, Zhongxing Liao, Joe Y. Chang, Daniel R. Gomez, Ann H. Klopp, G. Brandon Gunn, Pamela K. Allen, Paige L. Nitsch, Rachel B. Natter, Tina M. Briere, Joseph M. Herman, Rebecca Wells, Alber
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.2021; 19(7): 805. CrossRef
Association of radiation dose intensity with overall survival in patients with distant metastases
Johnny Kao, Mark K. Farrugia, Samantha Frontario, Amanda Zucker, Emily Copel, John Loscalzo, Ashish Sangal, Boramir Darakchiev, Anurag Singh, Symeon Missios
Cancer Medicine.2021; 10(22): 7934. CrossRef
Palliative Radiotherapy
William Tristram Arscott, Jaclyn Emmett, Alireza Fotouhi Ghiam, Joshua A. Jones
Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America.2020; 34(1): 253. CrossRef
Physician-Predicted Prognosis and Palliative Radiotherapy Treatment Utilization at the End of Life: An Audit of a Large Cancer Center Network
Adrianna E. Mojica-Márquez, Joshua L. Rodríguez-López, Ankur K. Patel, Diane C. Ling, Malolan S. Rajagopalan, Sushil Beriwal
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.2020; 60(5): 898. CrossRef
External validation of life expectancy prognostic models in patients evaluated for palliative radiotherapy at the end‐of‐life
Adrianna E. Mojica‐Márquez, Joshua L. Rodríguez‐López, Ankur K. Patel, Diane C. Ling, Malolan S. Rajagopalan, Sushil Beriwal
Cancer Medicine.2020; 9(16): 5781. CrossRef
Replacing 30 Gy in 10 fractions with stereotactic body radiation therapy for bone metastases: A large multi-site single institution experience 2016–2018
Erin F. Gillespie, Kaitlyn Lapen, Diana G. Wang, N. Wijetunga, Gerri L. Pastrana, Marisa A. Kollmeier, Josh Yamada, Adam M. Schmitt, Daniel S. Higginson, Max Vaynrub, Ernesto Santos Martin, Amy J. Xu, C. Jillian Tsai, Divya Yerramilli, Oren Cahlon, T. Jon
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology.2020; 25: 75. CrossRef
Palliative radiotherapy near the end of life
Susan Y. Wu, Lisa Singer, Lauren Boreta, Michael A. Garcia, Shannon E. Fogh, Steve E. Braunstein
BMC Palliative Care.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
Blood Albumin As A Prognostic Factor Among Unselected Medically Treated Inpatients
Krzysztof Tojek, Gabriel Kowalczyk, Beata Czerniak, Wioletta Banaś, Beata Szukay, Wanda Korzycka-Wilińska, Zbigniew Banaszkiewicz, Jacek Budzyński
Biomarkers in Medicine.2019; 13(13): 1059. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

The NEAT Predictive Model for Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Cancer Res Treat. 2018;50(4):1433-1443. Published online January 24, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.223

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

The NEAT Predictive Model for Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Fig. 1. Cumulative survival curve of the combined cohort.

Fig. 2. Survival probability based on groups according to the NEAT model (A), Odette Cancer Center model (B), and TEACHH model (C) developed from the training cohort. Survival probability based on groups according to the NEAT model (D), Odette Cancer Center model (E), and TEACHH model (F) developed from the validation cohort. Survival estimated using the Cox’s model (dashed lines) and the actual survival calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method (solid lines) are shown.

Fig. 3. Overall survival based on groups according to the NEAT model (A), Odette Cancer Center model (B), and TEACHH model (C) developed from the combined cohort.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

The NEAT Predictive Model for Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Variable
NEAT model
No. of tumors	Points
1-5	0
> 5	1
ECOG performance
0-1	0
2	1
3-4	2
Albumin (g/dL)
≥ 3.4	0
2.4-3.3	0.5
< 2.4	1
Primary tumor site
Breast, kidney, prostate	0
Other	1
Composite score	Group
0-1	Very low risk
1.5-2	Low risk
2.5-3.5	Intermediate risk
4-5	High risk
Odette Cancer Center model	Risk factor score
Primary tumor site
Breast	0
Nonbreast	1
Metastasis location
Bone only	0
Other than bone only	1
KPS
> 60	0
≤ 60	1
No. of risk factors	Group
0 to 1	1
2	2
3	3
TEACHH model	Risk factor score
Primary tumor site
Breast, prostate	0
Lung, other	1
ECOG performance
0-1	0
2-4	1
Age (yr)
≤ 60	0
> 60	1
No. of prior palliative chemotherapy courses
0-2	0
> 2	1
Prior hospitalizations within the last 3 mo
No	0
Yes	1
Liver metastasis
No	0
Yes	1
No. of risk factors score	Group
0 to 1	A
2 to 4	B
5 to 6	C

	Training set (n=116)	Validation set (n=119)	p-value
NEAT model
No. of tumors
1-5	32 (28)	34 (29)	0.867
≥ 6	84 (72)	85 (71)
ECOG performance
0-1	31 (27)	49 (41)	0.01
2	34 (29)	39 (33)
3-4	51 (44)	31 (26)
Albumin
≥ 3.4	54 (47)	58 (49)	0.479
2.4-3.3	52 (45)	46 (39)
< 2.4	10 (9)	15 (13)
Primary tumor site
Breast, kidney, prostate	16 (14)	33 (28)	< 0.001
Other	100 (86)	86 (72)
Odette Cancer Center model
Primary tumor site
Breast	7 (6)	19 (16)	0.015
Nonbreast	109 (94)	100 (84)
Metastasis location
Bone only	8 (7)	26 (22)	0.001
Other than bone only	108 (93)	93 (78)
KPS
> 60	31 (27)	49 (41)	0.019
≤ 60	85 (73)	70 (59)
TEACHH model
Primary tumor site
Breast, prostate	11 (9)	30 (25)	0.001
Lung, other	105 (91)	89 (75)
ECOG performance
0-1	31 (27)	49 (41)	0.019
2-4	85 (73)	70 (59)
Age (yr)
≤ 60	33 (28)	21 (18)	0.049
> 60	83 (72)	98 (82)
No. of prior palliative chemotherapy courses
0-2	103 (89)	106 (89)	0.945
> 2	13 (11)	13 (11)
Prior hospitalizations within the last 3 mo
0	28 (24)	38 (32)	0.184
≥ 1	88 (76)	81 (68)
Liver metastasis
No	93 (80)	92 (77)	0.592
Yes	23 (20)	27 (23)

	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis
	p-value	HR	95% Confidence interval	p-value
NEAT mode
No. of active tumors (1 to 5 vs. ≥ 6)	< 0.001	3.27	2.26 to 4.75	< 0.001
ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2 vs. 3-4)	< 0.001	2.29	1.85 to 2.84	< 0.001
Serum albumin (≥ 3.4 vs. 2.4-3.3 vs. < 2.4)	< 0.001	1.59	1.28 to 1.98	< 0.001
Primary tumor site (breast, kidney, or prostate vs. other)	0.004	3.10	2.06 to 4.68	< 0.001
Odette Cancer Center model
Primary tumor site (breast vs. nonbreast)	0.004	1.90	1.13 to 3.19	0.015
Metastasis location (bone only vs. other)	0.147	1.15	0.75 to 1.76	0.523
KPS (> 60 vs. ≤ 60)	< 0.001	3.22	2.32 to 4.45	< 0.001
TEACHH model
Primary tumor site (breast and prostate vs. lung and other)	0.025	2.00	1.28 to 3.14	0.002
ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2-4)	< 0.001	2.91	2.07 to 4.09	< 0.001
Age (≤ 60 yr vs. > 60 yr)	0.160	1.17	0.83 to 1.66	0.374
No. of prior palliative chemotherapy courses (0-1 vs. ≥ 2)	0.423	1.46	0.91 to 2.34	0.114
Prior hospitalizations within the last 3 mo (0 vs. ≥ 1)	< 0.001	1.46	1.02 to 2.08	0.038
Liver metastasis (no vs. yes)	< 0.001	1.49	1.04 to 2.12	0.028

	6-Month mortality (95% confidence interval)
	Training (n=116)	Validation (n=119)	Combined (n=235)
NEAT risk group
Very low risk	0 (0-21)	14 (3-34)	8 (2-21)
Low risk	18 (4-43)	15 (4-34)	16 (7-30)
Intermediate risk	70 (54-83)	70 (53-83)	70 (59-79)
High risk	95 (83-99)	90 (68-99)	93 (84-98)
C index	0.76	0.75	0.76
Nagelkerke R²	0.61	0.45	0.54
Odette Cancer Center risk group
1	0 (0-52)	22 (6-48)	17 (5-39)
2	31 (16-48)	33 (20-48)	32 (22-43)
3	80 (69-88)	77 (61-88)	79 (70-86)
C index	0.67	0.64	0.66
Nagelkerke R²	0.35	0.24	0.30
TEACHH risk group
A	14 (0-58)	10 (0-44)	12 (1-36)
B	60 (49-70)	46 (35-58)	54 (46-61)
C	88 (62-98)	68 (59-98)	87 (70-96)
C index	0.59	0.60	0.60
Nagelkerke R²	0.13	0.18	0.16

Table 1. Risk group calculations by previously identified models

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Table 2. Patient characteristics

Values are presented as number (%). ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis of predictors of overall survival for each model (n=235)

HR, hazard ratio; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.