Prediction of post-radiotherapy survival for bone metastases: a comparison of the 3-variable number of risk factors model with the new Katagiri scoring system. (31st December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sakurai, Takayuki; Takamatsu, Shigeyuki; Shimoyachi, Nana; Shibata, Satoshi; Makino, Mikoto; Ohashi, Shizuko; Taima, Yoko; Minamikawa, Risako; Kumano, Tomoyasu; Gabata, Toshifumi
• Is Part Of: Journal of radiation research. Volume 63:Number 2(2022)
• Page Start: 303
• Page End: 311
• Publication Date: 2021-12-31
• Subjects: bone metastasis -- new Katagiri scoring system -- 3-variable number of risk factors (NRF) model -- palliative radiation therapy -- prognostic factors; Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiobiology -- Periodicals; Radiation -- Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrab121
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0449-3060

Abstract

Abstract: We investigated patient survival after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases while comparing the prognostic accuracies of the 3-variable number of risk factors (NRF) model and the new Katagiri scoring system (Katagiri score). Overall, 485 patients who received radiotherapy for bone metastases were grouped as per the NRF model (groups I, II and III) and Katagiri score (low-, intermediate- and high-risk). Survival was compared using the log-rank or log-rank trend test. Independent prognostic factors were identified using multivariate Cox regression analyses (MCRA). MCRA and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare both models' accuracy. For the 376 evaluable patients, the overall survival (OS) rates decreased significantly in the higher-tier groups of both models (P < 0.001). All evaluated factors except 'previous chemotherapy status' differed significantly between groups. Both models exhibited independent predictive power (P < 0.001). Per NRF model, hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.44 (P = 0.099) and 2.944 (P < 0.001), respectively, for groups II and III, relative to group I. Per Katagiri score, HRs for intermediate- and high-risk groups were 4.02 (P < 0.001) and 7.09 (P < 0.001), respectively, relative to the low-risk group. Areas under the curve (AUC) for predicting 6-, 18- and 24-month mortality were significantly higher when using the Katagiri score (P = 0.036, 0.039 and 0.022). Both models predict survival. Prognostic accuracy of the Katagiri score is superior, especially in patients with long-term survival potential; however, in patients with short prognosis, no difference occurred between both models; simplicity and patient burden should also be considered.