Impact of baseline symptom burden as assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
12020 Background: Patients with metastatic cancer experience variable symptom burden, but serial symptom assessments using PROs may be challenging to implement in routine clinical practices. We aimed to determine if a single measurement of symptom burden at the time of metastatic diagnosis is associated with survival. Methods: We examined prospectively collected baseline PROs of patients newly diagnosed with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESASr) questionnaire from a large province (Alberta, Canada) between 2016 and 2019. The ESASr was categorized into physical (PH), psychosocial (PS), and total symptom (TS) domains whereby scores were classified as mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate the effect of baseline symptom scores on OS. Results: We identified 1,315 patients, of whom 57% were men and median age was 66 (IQR, 27-93) years. There were 180, 601, 240, and 294 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer, respectively. Approximately one-quarter of all patients reported moderate to severe PH, PS, and TS scores, with lung cancer patients experiencing the highest symptom intensity across all domains ( P<0.0001). While age did not affect symptom scores, women were more likely to report severe PH, PS, and TS scores as compared to men ( P=0.02, 0.002, and 0.007, respectively). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, older age (HR 1.02, 95% CI, 1.02-1.03, P<0.0001) and female sex (HR 1.67, 95% CI, 1.39-1.99, P<0.0001) were predictive of worse OS as were severe baseline PH and TS scores (see Table) . However, baseline PS scores were not related to OS. Conclusions: A single assessment of baseline symptom burden using the ESASr in patients with metastatic cancer has significant prognostic value. This may represent a feasible first step toward routine collection of PROs in real-world settings where serial symptom measurements can be challenging to implement. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".