PURPOSE: In 2005, the European Association for Palliative Care made recommendations for prognostic markers in advanced cancer. Since then, prognostic tools have been developed, evolved, and validated. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the progress in the development and validation of prognostic tools. METHODS: Medline, Embase Classic and Embase were searched. Eligible studies met the following criteria: patients with incurable cancer, >18 years, original studies, population n ≥100, and published after 2003. Descriptive and quantitative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were eligible, assessing seven prognostic tools across different care settings, primary cancer types, and statistically assessed survival prediction. The Palliative Performance Scale was the most studied (n = 21,082), comprising six parameters (six subjective), was externally validated, and predicted survival. The Palliative Prognostic Score composed of six parameters (four subjective and two objective), the Palliative Prognostic Index composed of nine parameters (nine subjective), and the Glasgow Prognostic Score composed of two parameters (two objective) and were all externally validated in more than 2000 patients with advanced cancer and predicted survival. CONCLUSION: Various prognostic tools have been validated but vary in their complexity, subjectivity, and therefore clinical utility. The Glasgow Prognostic Score would seem the most favorable as it uses only two parameters (both objective) and has prognostic value complementary to the gold standard measure, which is performance status. Further studies comparing all proved prognostic markers in a single cohort of patients with advanced cancer are needed to determine the optimal prognostic tool.
PURPOSE: In 2005, the European Association for Palliative Care made recommendations for prognostic markers in advanced cancer. Since then, prognostic tools have been developed, evolved, and validated. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the progress in the development and validation of prognostic tools. METHODS: Medline, Embase Classic and Embase were searched. Eligible studies met the following criteria: patients with incurable cancer, >18 years, original studies, population n ≥100, and published after 2003. Descriptive and quantitative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were eligible, assessing seven prognostic tools across different care settings, primary cancer types, and statistically assessed survival prediction. The Palliative Performance Scale was the most studied (n = 21,082), comprising six parameters (six subjective), was externally validated, and predicted survival. The Palliative Prognostic Score composed of six parameters (four subjective and two objective), the Palliative Prognostic Index composed of nine parameters (nine subjective), and the Glasgow Prognostic Score composed of two parameters (two objective) and were all externally validated in more than 2000 patients with advanced cancer and predicted survival. CONCLUSION: Various prognostic tools have been validated but vary in their complexity, subjectivity, and therefore clinical utility. The Glasgow Prognostic Score would seem the most favorable as it uses only two parameters (both objective) and has prognostic value complementary to the gold standard measure, which is performance status. Further studies comparing all proved prognostic markers in a single cohort of patients with advanced cancer are needed to determine the optimal prognostic tool.
Authors: Laura S Porter; Gregory Samsa; Jennifer L Steel; Laura C Hanson; Thomas W LeBlanc; Janet Bull; Stacy Fischer; Francis J Keefe Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: David Hui; Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Egidio G Del Fabbro; Christopher Steer; Jane Naberhuis; Marianne van de Wetering; Paz Fernández-Ortega; Tatsuya Morita; Sang-Yeon Suh; Eduardo Bruera; Masanori Mori Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michelle A Mollica; Ashley Wilder Smith; Emily Tonorezos; Kathleen Castro; Kelly K Filipski; Jennifer Guida; Frank Perna; Paige Green; Paul B Jacobsen; Angela Mariotto; Gina Tesauro; Lisa Gallicchio Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Hye Seon Kang; Ah Young Shin; Chang Dong Yeo; Sung Kyoung Kim; Chan Kwon Park; Ju Sang Kim; Seung Joon Kim; Sang Haak Lee; Jin Woo Kim Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Ross D Dolan; Louise E Daly; Claribel Pl Simmons; Aoife M Ryan; Wei Mj Sim; Marie Fallon; Derek G Power; Andrew Wilcock; Matthew Maddocks; Michael I Bennett; Caroline Usborne; Barry J Laird; Donald C McMillan Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 6.639