David Hui1, Minjeong Park2, Diane Liu2, Carlos Eduardo Paiva3, Sang-Yeon Suh4, Tatsuya Morita5, Eduardo Bruera6. 1. Department of Palliative Care, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, USA. Electronic address: dhui@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Biostatistics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Medicine, Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Palliative and Supportive Care, Palliative Care Team and Seirei Hospice, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan. 6. Department of Palliative Care, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinician prediction of survival (CPS) has low accuracy in the advanced cancer setting, raising the need for prediction models such as the palliative prognostic (PaP) score that includes a transformed CPS (PaP-CPS) and five clinical/laboratory variables (PaP-without CPS). However, it is unclear if the PaP score is more accurate than PaP-CPS, and whether PaP-CPS helps to improve the accuracy of PaP score. We compared the accuracy among PaP-CPS, PaP-without CPS and PaP-total score in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, PaP score was documented in hospitalised patients seen by palliative care. We compared the discrimination of PaP-CPS versus PaP-total and PaP-without CPS versus PaP-total using four indices: concordance statistics, area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC), net reclassification index and integrated discrimination improvement for 30-day survival and 100-day survival. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients were enrolled with a median survival of 109 d (95% confidence interval [CI] 71-133 d). The AUC for 30-day survival was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.67) for PaP-CPS, 0.78 (95% CI 0.7-0.87) for PaP-without CPS, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.82) for PaP-total score. PaP-total was significantly more accurate than PaP-CPS according to all four indices for both 30-day and 100-day survival (P < 0.001). PaP-without CPS was significantly more accurate than PaP-total for 30-day survival (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We found that PaP score was more accurate than CPS, and the addition of CPS to the prognostic model reduced its accuracy. This study highlights the limitations of clinical gestalt and the need to use objective prognostic factors and models for survival prediction.
BACKGROUND: Clinician prediction of survival (CPS) has low accuracy in the advanced cancer setting, raising the need for prediction models such as the palliative prognostic (PaP) score that includes a transformed CPS (PaP-CPS) and five clinical/laboratory variables (PaP-without CPS). However, it is unclear if the PaP score is more accurate than PaP-CPS, and whether PaP-CPS helps to improve the accuracy of PaP score. We compared the accuracy among PaP-CPS, PaP-without CPS and PaP-total score in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, PaP score was documented in hospitalised patients seen by palliative care. We compared the discrimination of PaP-CPS versus PaP-total and PaP-without CPS versus PaP-total using four indices: concordance statistics, area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC), net reclassification index and integrated discrimination improvement for 30-day survival and 100-day survival. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients were enrolled with a median survival of 109 d (95% confidence interval [CI] 71-133 d). The AUC for 30-day survival was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.67) for PaP-CPS, 0.78 (95% CI 0.7-0.87) for PaP-without CPS, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.82) for PaP-total score. PaP-total was significantly more accurate than PaP-CPS according to all four indices for both 30-day and 100-day survival (P < 0.001). PaP-without CPS was significantly more accurate than PaP-total for 30-day survival (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We found that PaP score was more accurate than CPS, and the addition of CPS to the prognostic model reduced its accuracy. This study highlights the limitations of clinical gestalt and the need to use objective prognostic factors and models for survival prediction.
Authors: M Pirovano; M Maltoni; O Nanni; M Marinari; M Indelli; G Zaninetta; V Petrella; S Barni; E Zecca; E Scarpi; R Labianca; D Amadori; G Luporini Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: David Hui; Kelly Kilgore; Linh Nguyen; Stacy Hall; Julieta Fajardo; Tonye P Cox-Miller; Shana L Palla; Wadih Rhondali; Jung Hun Kang; Sun Hyun Kim; Egidio Del Fabbro; Donna S Zhukovsky; Suresh Reddy; Ahmed Elsayem; Shalini Dalal; Rony Dev; Paul Walker; Sriram Yennu; Akhila Reddy; Eduardo Bruera Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-10-05
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Claribel Simmons; Donald C McMillan; Sharon Tuck; Cat Graham; Alistair McKeown; Mike Bennett; Claire O'Neill; Andrew Wilcock; Caroline Usborne; Kenneth C Fearon; Marie Fallon; Barry J Laird Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-04-11
Authors: Patrick Stone; Anastasia Kalpakidou; Chris Todd; Jane Griffiths; Vaughan Keeley; Karen Spencer; Peter Buckle; Dori-Anne Finlay; Victoria Vickerstaff; Rumana Z Omar Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 4.014