Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Oncology
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 128240, 7 pages
Clinical Study

Development of a Score Predicting Survival after Palliative Reirradiation

1Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital, 8092 Bodø, Norway
2Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, 9019 Tromsø, Norway
3Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
4Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Freiburg, 79106 Freiburg, Germany

Received 5 May 2014; Accepted 2 September 2014; Published 21 September 2014

Academic Editor: Thomas E. Adrian

Copyright © 2014 Carsten Nieder et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Purpose. To develop a prognostic model for predicting survival after palliative reirradiation (PR). Methods and Materials. We analyzed all 87 PR courses administered at a dedicated palliative radiotherapy facility between 20.06.2007 (opening) and 31.12.2009. Uni- and multivariate survival analyses were performed, the previously published survival prediction score (SPS) was evaluated, and a PR-specific prognostic score was calculated. Results. In multivariate analysis, four parameters significantly influenced survival: performance status, use of steroids, presence of liver metastases, and pleural effusion. Based on these parameters, a 4-tiered score was developed. Median survival was 24.5 months for the favorable group, 9.7 and 2.8 months for the two intermediate groups, and 1.1 months for the unfavorable group ( for comparison between the two favorable groups and for all other pair-wise comparisons). All patients in the unfavorable group died within 2 months. Conclusion. The performance of PR-specific score was promising and might facilitate identification of patients who survive long enough to benefit from PR. It should be validated in independent patient groups, ideally from several institutions and countries.