The prognostic effects of performance status (PS) and quality of life (QoL) scores on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5066 Background: Performance status is an important prognostic factor in advanced ovarian cancer. We sought to evaluate the relationship between PS and EORTC QLQ-C30 QoL scores and the PFS and OS in advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: Canadian data was analyzed as part of an intergroup randomized trial in ovarian cancer (NCIC-OV10). Patients were randomized to receive either standard chemotherapy using cisplatin/cyclophosphamide or cisplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy. The EORTC QoL questionnaire QLQ-C30 was administered just prior to starting chemotherapy, at each cycle, and every 3 months thereafter for two years or until disease progression. We determined PS and QoL scores in the following domains: physical, role, emotion, cognitive, social function and global QoL at baseline and 6 months after completing chemotherapy. Effects of multiple variables including treatment, PS, QoL scores, age, stage, grade, residual disease and histology were analyzed by Cox stepwise regression using PFS and OS as the outcome variables. Results: At baseline and at 6 months after chemotherapy, there were 151 and 80 patients respectively who completed QoL assessments. The Cox model revealed that baseline PS, global QoL and treatment were independent predictors for both PFS and OS, and grade and cognitive functioning were additional independent predictors for OS. Physical function at six months after completion of chemotherapy was the only significant independent predictor of both PFS and OS, with age and grade as two additional independent predictors for subsequent OS. Conclusions: Performance status and global quality of life scores at baseline are prognostic factors in advanced ovarian cancer for both PFS and OS. Higher baseline cognitive functioning scores were also associated with improved survival. Higher physical function scores at six months after completing chemotherapy predicted longer PFS and OS. (This research was supported by the NCIC through funds received by the Canadian Cancer Society). No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".