Author of

• 16489

  +

  P1.01 - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 453)

  • Event: WCLC 2016
  • Type: Poster Presenters Present
  • Track: Epidemiology/Tobacco Control and Cessation/Prevention
  • Presentations: 2
  • Moderators:
  • Coordinates: 12/05/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)

  • 16523

    +

    P1.01-034 - ECOG Scale of Performance Status in Lung Cancer at the First Consultation at a National Cancer Institute in a Developing Country in Latin America (ID 4548)

    14:30 - 14:30  |  Author(s): M.A. Agüero Pino
    • Abstract

    Background:
    This article reviews ECOG scale values at the first consultation in our Institute, we review demographic and other related variables. ECOG at first consultation is related to treatment options.
    
    Methods:
    Between January 2004 and December 2013, all patients diagnosed with a pathology of SCLC and NSCLC at National Institute of Oncology at Paraguay were analyzed retrospectively. ECOG performance status, were recorded. SPSS 20 was used to analyze.
    
    Results:
    We studied 478 subjects. At age mean 60,40 [95% CI 59,45 to 61,34] years and ECOG performance status mean 2,13 [95% CI 2,06 to 2,20] points. Frequency of ECOG was to 2: 48.1%, to 3:31.3%, to 1: 19 %, to 4:1.1%, to 0: 0,6% of our population. Place of living predominant ECOG at Rural place: ECOG 2: 50%, ECOG 3: 30.6%. At Urban places ECOG 2:44.9% and ECOG 3:32.4% (P>0.05) ECOG and occupational relation was unemployed ECOG 2: 54.2%, Other professions ECOG 2: 46.9% , Farmers ECOG 2: 43.3,6% , homemakers ECOG 3: 50% (P= 0.008). Most of patient were smokers ECOG 4: 100%, ECOG 2: 86%, ECOG 3: 81%, ECOG 1: 76,1%, (P=0,000). Clinical severity and ECOG relation was predominant at ECOG 0 to Stage IIIB:66.7% and ECOG 1 to Stage IIIB:43.5%. And predominant at ECOG 2 was Stage IV: 54.7%, ECOG 3 and 4 was Stage IV: 60%, both (P=0,000). ECOG 1: 33,8% accept to chemotherapy ,ECOG 2: 46.6% Reject any treatment, ECOG 3: 43.9% Reject any treatment, ECOG 4: 40% accept to radiotherapy (P=0,000). Non-Small cell carcinoma predominant ECOG 2: 48.2% Small cell carcinoma: predominant ECOG 2: 48.1%(P>0.05).
    
    Conclusion:
    Our mean ECOG was 2.13 but predominance in our populations is ECOG 2 with 48% and ECOG 3 with 31%. Prevalence of ECOG 2 and 3 at first consultation was found at Rural and Urban Places. Statistical significance was found at work and ECOG performance with prevalence to ECOG 2 except to homemakers who had prevalence to ECOG 3. Association with smoking prevalence was ECOG 4 at first consultation. Is important to conclude that at ECOG 0 and 1 clinical stage IIIB was predominant and to ECOG 2 to 4 was clinical stage IV, which shows relation between clinical severity and ECOG performance, but multivariate analysis will be required. Relation between treatment show a high rejection to treatment at ECOG 2 and 3. With this analysis we need to seek a logistic regression model to search relation with ECOG performance and other variables.
    
    

  • 16540

    +

    P1.01-051 - Predictor Variables to ECOG Scale of Performance Status in Lung Cancer at a Developing Country in Latin America (ID 4550)

    14:30 - 14:30  |  Author(s): M.A. Agüero Pino
    • Abstract

    Background:
    We need to understand the living quality in our population, so we review performance status focus on ECOG 3,4,5 that includes a concept of capable of limited self-care, because this increases expenses at families and health system. We need to understand the variables that increases risk of higher ECOG values.
    
    Methods:
    Between January 2004 and December 2013, all patients diagnosed with a pathology of SCLC and NSCLC at National Institute of Oncology at Paraguay were analyzed retrospectively. ECOG performance status were recorded and SPSS 20 was used to analyze with logistic Binary regression
    
    Results:
    We studied 478 subjects. At age mean 60,40 [95% CI 59,45 to 61,34 ] years and ECOG performance status mean 2,13 [95% CI 2,06 to 2,20] points. Bivariate correlations show no relation with age, gender, living place, work, smoking, alcohol consumption, histopathology of lung cancer only with motive of consultation and clinical severity. In our model of predicting a ECOG 3 to 5 adding first motive of consultation show a Nagelkerke R2: 0.14, Hosmer y Lemeshow P: 0.95. Adding to the model clinical severity Nagelkerke R2: 0.07 Hosmer y Lemeshow P: 1.0. Variables in our predicting model show at clinical severity IIB stage OR:6,62 [95% CI 1,13 to 38,52 P=0.035], clinical severity IIIA stage OR: 3.85 [95% CI 1,18 to 12.51 P=0.025],clinical severity IIIB stage OR:4,49 [95% CI 1,87 to 10,78 P=0.001]. At limited-stage SCLC clinical severity OR: 10,12 [95% CI 1,88 to 54,34 P=0.007]. At first motive of consultation chest paint OR: 3,13 [95% CI 1,38 to 7,11 P=0.006]. Cough OR: 2,30 [95% CI 1,11 to 4,76 P=0.024]. Palpable Tumoral mass OR: 8,35 [95% CI 1,65 to 42,07 P=0.010].
    
    Conclusion:
    Regardless our expectations about relation of disability of patient with lung cancer about place of living, work, gender, age this variables show no relation with ECOG at 3 to 5. In Our review we found a prediction model with clinical severity adding 7% to prognostic of limited self-care and by adding to the model first motive of consultation a 14% of prognostic of worst ECOG status. If first consultation motive is chest pain, cough or palpable tumoral mass, this are strongly related with worst ECOG values. As a conclusion most of our patients are diagnostic in advance clinical stages with a bad performance status which will limited our options to treatment. All of these can be related with a late consultation or a late detection of the disease.