Survival prediction for advanced cancer patients in the real world: A comparison of the Palliative Prognostic Score, Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score, Palliative Prognostic Index and modified Prognosis in Palliative Care Study predictor model. Issue 12 (August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Baba, Mika; Maeda, Isseki; Morita, Tatsuya; Inoue, Satoshi; Ikenaga, Masayuki; Matsumoto, Yoshihisa; Sekine, Ryuichi; Yamaguchi, Takashi; Hirohashi, Takeshi; Tajima, Tsukasa; Tatara, Ryohei; Watanabe, Hiroaki; Otani, Hiroyuki; Takigawa, Chizuko; Matsuda, Yoshinobu; Nagaoka, Hiroka; Mori, Masanori; Tei, Yo; Hiramoto, Shuji; Suga, Akihiko; Kinoshita, Hiroya
• Is Part Of: European journal of cancer. Volume 51:Issue 12(2015:Aug.)
• Page Start: 1618
• Page End: 1629
• Publication Date: 2015-08
• Subjects: Cancer -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Périodiques; Cancer; Tumors; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.04.025
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0959-8049

Abstract

<abstract xml:lang="en" abstract-type="author" id="ab005"> <title id="st005">Abstract</title> <sec> <title id="st010">Purpose</title> <p id="sp0005">The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP score), Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score (D-PaP score), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) and modified Prognosis in Palliative Care Study predictor model (PiPS model).</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="st015">Patients and methods</title> <p id="sp0010">This multicentre prospective cohort study involved 58 palliative care services, including 19 hospital palliative care teams, 16 palliative care units and 23 home palliative care services, in Japan from September 2012 to April 2014. Analyses were performed involving four patient groups: those treated by palliative care teams, those in palliative care units, those at home and those receiving chemotherapy.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="st020">Results</title> <p id="sp0015">We recruited 2426 participants, and 2361 patients were finally analysed. Risk groups based on these instruments successfully identified patients with different survival profiles in all groups. The feasibility of PPI and modified PiPS-A was more than 90% in all groups, followed by PaP and D-PaP scores; modified PiPS-B had the lowest feasibility. The accuracy of prognostic scores was ⩾69% in all groups and the difference was within 13%, while c-statistics were significantly lower with the PPI than PaP and D-PaP scores.</p> </sec> <sec> <title id="st025">Conclusion</title> <p id="sp0020">The PaP score, D-PaP score, PPI and modified PiPS model provided distinct survival groups for patients in the three palliative care settings and those receiving chemotherapy. The PPI seems to be suitable for routine clinical use for situations where rough estimates of prognosis are sufficient and/or patients do not want invasive procedure. If clinicians can address more items, the modified PiPS-A would be a non-invasive alternative. In cases where blood samples are available or those requiring more accurate prediction, the PaP and D-PaP scores and modified PiPS-B would be more appropriate.</p> </sec> </abstract>