BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to assess the practical utility of the palliative prognostic index (PPI) as a prognostic tool used by nurse specialists in a hospice consultation setting in Taiwan. METHODS: In total, 623 terminal cancer patients under hospice consultation care from one medical center in northern Taiwan were enrolled between January 1 and June 30, 2011. PPI was assessed by a nurse specialist at first hospice consultation and patients categorized into groups by prognosis (good, intermediate, poor). Patient survival was analyzed retrospectively to determine significance of between-group differences. RESULTS: By PPI sum score, 37.2% of patients were in the good prognosis group, 18% in the intermediate prognosis group and 44.8% in the poor prognosis group. The death rates were 56%, 81.2% and 89.6% and median survivals were 76, 18 and 7 days, respectively. The hazard ratio was 0.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.24, p<0.001) for the poor versus good prognosis group and 0.54 (95% CI 0.43-0.69, p<0.001) for the poor versus intermediate prognosis group. The sensitivity and specificity for the poor prognosis group was 66% and 71%; the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 81% and 52%, respectively, to predict patient death within 21 days (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic was 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment by PPI can accurately predict survival of terminal cancer patients receiving hospice consultation care. PPI is a simple tool and can be administered by nurse members of hospice consultation teams.
BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to assess the practical utility of the palliative prognostic index (PPI) as a prognostic tool used by nurse specialists in a hospice consultation setting in Taiwan. METHODS: In total, 623 terminal cancerpatients under hospice consultation care from one medical center in northern Taiwan were enrolled between January 1 and June 30, 2011. PPI was assessed by a nurse specialist at first hospice consultation and patients categorized into groups by prognosis (good, intermediate, poor). Patient survival was analyzed retrospectively to determine significance of between-group differences. RESULTS: By PPI sum score, 37.2% of patients were in the good prognosis group, 18% in the intermediate prognosis group and 44.8% in the poor prognosis group. The death rates were 56%, 81.2% and 89.6% and median survivals were 76, 18 and 7 days, respectively. The hazard ratio was 0.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.24, p<0.001) for the poor versus good prognosis group and 0.54 (95% CI 0.43-0.69, p<0.001) for the poor versus intermediate prognosis group. The sensitivity and specificity for the poor prognosis group was 66% and 71%; the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 81% and 52%, respectively, to predict patient death within 21 days (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic was 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment by PPI can accurately predict survival of terminal cancerpatients receiving hospice consultation care. PPI is a simple tool and can be administered by nurse members of hospice consultation teams.
Authors: P Stone; V Vickerstaff; A Kalpakidou; C Todd; J Griffiths; V Keeley; K Spencer; P Buckle; D Finlay; R Z Omar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.240