ECOG performance status captured only part of the patient experience in patients with gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma, with patients with a baseline ECOG performance status of 1 experiencing worsened patient-reported outcomes (PROs), according to findings from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 RATIONALE-305 trial (NCT03777657) presented at the 2026 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.1
The post hoc analysis included patients treated during the study with either the experimental regimen of tislelizumab-jsgr (Tevimbra) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy.
Notably, when patients were stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences across gastric/GEJ-specific symptom domains on the EORTC QLQ-STO22 questionnaire, including dietary restrictions (mean, 86.9 for ECOG 0 vs 86.0 for ECOG 1; odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01; P = .4243), dysphagia (89.5 vs 88.6; OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01; P = .4812), pain/discomfort (81.0 vs 78.2; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .0527), and upper GI symptoms (88.5 vs 86.9; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; P = .1551), suggesting ECOG performance status may not fully capture baseline gastric/GEJ cancer–specific symptom burden.
Conversely, patients with baseline ECOG performance status of 1 had lower odds of reporting favorable PROs compared with those with an ECOG performance status of 0. Specifically, an ECOG performance status of 1 was associated with significantly lower odds of reporting better global health status/quality of life (GSH/QOL; 72.5 for ECOG 0 vs 68.0 for ECOG 1; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99; P < .001), physical functioning (89.8 vs 87.6; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; P = .0245), and pain (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .0343) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. A trend toward worse outcomes was also observed for role functioning (89.3 vs 86.6; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .0845), although this did not reach statistical significance. No significant associations were observed for constipation (87.0 vs 86.0; OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .5509), diarrhea (92.8 vs 93.9; OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; P = .3273), or fatigue (79.4 vs 77.5; OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .1967).
“Among patients with first-line gastric/GEJ, those with [a] baseline ECOG performance status [of] 1 reported significantly worse GHS/QOL, physical functioning, and pain [vs] those with [an] ECOG performance status [of] 0, irrespective of treatment arm. Multivariable regression analyses confirmed a lower probability of achieving better PRO scores for patients with ECOG performance status 1 compared with ECOG performance status 0,” lead study author Marcia Cruz-Correa, MD, PhD, AGAF, FASGE, concluded in her presentation of the results. “These results suggest that integrating baseline PROs into eligibility and/or stratification criteria may improve risk stratification, support more patient-centered trial design, and foster more meaningful patient-clinician dialogue at treatment initiation.”