METHODS: We used prospective data from the first 1,500 patients included in IGOS, aged ≥6 years and unable to walk independently. We evaluated whether the mEGOS at entry and week 1 could predict the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in the full cohort and in regional subgroups, using 2 measures for model performance: (1) discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and (2) calibration: observed vs predicted probability of being unable to walk independently. To improve the model predictions, we recalibrated the model containing the overall mEGOS score, without changing the individual predictive factors. Finally, we assessed the predictive ability of the individual factors.
RESULTS: For validation of mEGOS at entry, 809 patients were eligible (Europe/North America [n = 677], Asia [n = 76], other [n = 56]), and 671 for validation of mEGOS at week 1 (Europe/North America [n = 563], Asia [n = 65], other [n = 43]). AUC values were >0.7 in all regional subgroups. In the Europe/North America subgroup, observed outcomes were worse than predicted; in Asia, observed outcomes were better than predicted. Recalibration improved model accuracy and enabled the development of a region-specific version for Europe/North America (mEGOS-Eu/NA). Similar to the original mEGOS, severe limb weakness and higher age were the predominant predictors of poor outcome in the IGOS cohort.
DISCUSSION: mEGOS is a validated tool to predict the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in patients with GBS, also in countries outside the Netherlands. We developed a region-specific version of mEGOS for patients from Europe/North America.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that the mEGOS accurately predicts the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in patients with GBS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: NCT01582763.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE was systematically searched using prespecified criteria. Publications (previous 10 years) that reported tumour characteristics, treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and/or safety outcomes of patients with soft-tissue sarcoma were selected. Exclusion criteria were studies of patients <18 years of age; ≤ 10 patients; countries other than Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, or Thailand; >20% benign tumours; sarcomas located in bones or joints; gastrointestinal stromal tumour; Kaposi's sarcoma; or not reporting relevant outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the 1,822 publications retrieved, 35 (32 studies) were included. Nearly all patients (98%, 1,992/2,024; 31 studies) were treated with surgery, and more studies used adjuvant radiotherapy than chemotherapy (24 vs 17 studies). Survival outcomes and recurrence rates varied among the studies because of the different histotypes, sites, and disease stages assessed. Only 5 studies reported safety findings.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the lack of specific data available about soft-tissue sarcomas in the Asia-Pacific region. Better efforts to understand how the sarcoma is managed and treated will help improve patient outcomes in the region.