INTRODUCTION: Prognostic scoring systems are increasingly used in cancer care. One of these systems is the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) which is based on clinical findings. Few studies validated the PPI in different settings. Our aim was to test the predictive value of the PPI in an acute cancer care setting. METHODS: Prospective study that included patients with advanced cancer admitted to a tertiary cancer center in Kuwait. Patients were divided according to the PPI score into three groups: A (PPI≤3), B (PPI>3- ≤6), and C (>6). RESULTS: The study included 91 hospitalized patients. At the time of PPI assessment, the plan of treatment was best supportive care only in 70 (77%) patients. The majority (80%) of included patients died in-hospital. The in-hospital mortality rate for patients with a PPI>6 was significantly higher than those with ≤6 (93% versus 56%, p<0.001). Using a cutoff point of PPI>6, in-hospital mortality was predicted with a 73% sensitivity, 78% specificity, 93% positive predictive value, and 41% negative predictive value. The median survival was 61 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.8-96.2) for group A, 20 days (95% CI: 4.5-35.5) for group B, and 6 days (95% CI: 4-8) for group C. The difference in survival was highly significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the PPI may be helpful for oncologists in predicting survival and in-hospital mortality of patients with advanced cancer in the acute care setting.
INTRODUCTION: Prognostic scoring systems are increasingly used in cancer care. One of these systems is the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) which is based on clinical findings. Few studies validated the PPI in different settings. Our aim was to test the predictive value of the PPI in an acute cancer care setting. METHODS: Prospective study that included patients with advanced cancer admitted to a tertiary cancer center in Kuwait. Patients were divided according to the PPI score into three groups: A (PPI≤3), B (PPI>3- ≤6), and C (>6). RESULTS: The study included 91 hospitalized patients. At the time of PPI assessment, the plan of treatment was best supportive care only in 70 (77%) patients. The majority (80%) of included patients died in-hospital. The in-hospital mortality rate for patients with a PPI>6 was significantly higher than those with ≤6 (93% versus 56%, p<0.001). Using a cutoff point of PPI>6, in-hospital mortality was predicted with a 73% sensitivity, 78% specificity, 93% positive predictive value, and 41% negative predictive value. The median survival was 61 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.8-96.2) for group A, 20 days (95% CI: 4.5-35.5) for group B, and 6 days (95% CI: 4-8) for group C. The difference in survival was highly significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the PPI may be helpful for oncologists in predicting survival and in-hospital mortality of patients with advanced cancer in the acute care setting.