Piccirillo Jay F, Spitznagel Edward L, Vermani Nisha, Costas Irene, Schnitzler Mark
Clinical Outcomes Research Office, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Med Care. 2004 May;42(5):482-6. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000124254.88292.a1.
Comorbidity is an important prognostic factor for elderly patients with head and neck cancer. Investigators are faced with the dilemma of selecting the appropriate comorbidity instrument for outcomes research in cancer. The goal of this study was to compare 2 general comorbidity indices with 2 disease-specific indices.
The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare-linked database was used to identify 15,493 patients with incident squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx first diagnosed between December 1983 and December 1994. Comorbid ailments were identified through the use of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition codes in the Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims for 7131 patients. The overall severity of comorbidity was classified according to 2 general comorbidity indices: the Charlson Comorbidity Index and the Klabunde Index, and 2 disease-specific indices: the Washington University Head and Neck Index and the Head and Neck Cancer Index. Overall survival was the primary end point. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to assess the performance and discrimination of the comorbidity indices.
For each of the 4 comorbidity indices, there was a weak trend of worse survival with higher levels of comorbidity. The 2 general indices performed as well as the 2 disease-specific indices and no instrument clearly performed better than the others.
Both the general and disease-specific comorbidity indices provided important prognostic information. The disease-specific indices did not perform better than the general indices. In this claims-based analysis, there was no apparent advantage to using a disease-specific index when attempting to predict overall survival.
合并症是老年头颈癌患者的一个重要预后因素。研究人员在为癌症结局研究选择合适的合并症评估工具时面临两难境地。本研究的目的是比较两种通用合并症指数与两种疾病特异性指数。
利用监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)与医疗保险关联数据库,识别出1983年12月至1994年12月期间首次诊断为口腔、咽和喉鳞状细胞癌的15493例患者。通过使用国际疾病分类第九版编码,在医疗保险住院和门诊理赔记录中识别出7131例患者的合并症。根据两种通用合并症指数:查尔森合并症指数和克拉本德指数,以及两种疾病特异性指数:华盛顿大学头颈指数和头颈癌指数,对合并症的总体严重程度进行分类。总生存是主要终点。采用Cox比例风险分析来评估合并症指数的性能和区分度。
对于4种合并症指数中的每一种,合并症水平越高,生存情况越差的趋势较弱。两种通用指数的表现与两种疾病特异性指数相当,没有一种工具明显优于其他工具。
通用和疾病特异性合并症指数均提供了重要的预后信息。疾病特异性指数的表现并不优于通用指数。在这项基于理赔记录的分析中,在试图预测总生存时,使用疾病特异性指数没有明显优势。