Paige Farinholt1, Minjeong Park2, Ying Guo3, Eduardo Bruera3, David Hui4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Palliative Care, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Department of Palliative Care, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. Electronic address: dhui@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Survival predictions for advanced cancer patients impact many aspects of care, but the accuracy of clinician prediction of survival (CPS) is low. Prognostic tools such as the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) have been proposed to improve accuracy of predictions. However, it is not known if PPI is better than CPS at discriminating survival. OBJECTIVE: We compared the prognostic accuracy of CPS to PPI in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective study in which palliative care physicians at our tertiary care cancer center documented both the PPI and CPS in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. We compared the discrimination of CPS and PPI using 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: Two hundred fifteen patients were enrolled with a median survival of 109 days and a median follow-up of 239 days. The AUC for 30-day survival was 0.76 (95% CI 0.66-0.85) for PPI and 0.58 (95% CI 0.47-0.68) for CPS (P < 0.0001). Using the net reclassification index, 67% of patients were correctly reclassified using PPI instead of CPS for 30-day survival (P = 0.0005). CPS and PPI had similar accuracy for 100-day survival (AUC 0.62 vs. 0.64; P = 0.58). CONCLUSION: We found that PPI was more accurate than CPS when used to discriminate survival at 30 days, but not at 100 days. This study highlights the reason and timing for using PPI to facilitate survival predictions.
CONTEXT: Survival predictions for advanced cancerpatients impact many aspects of care, but the accuracy of clinician prediction of survival (CPS) is low. Prognostic tools such as the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) have been proposed to improve accuracy of predictions. However, it is not known if PPI is better than CPS at discriminating survival. OBJECTIVE: We compared the prognostic accuracy of CPS to PPI in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective study in which palliative care physicians at our tertiary care cancer center documented both the PPI and CPS in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. We compared the discrimination of CPS and PPI using 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: Two hundred fifteen patients were enrolled with a median survival of 109 days and a median follow-up of 239 days. The AUC for 30-day survival was 0.76 (95% CI 0.66-0.85) for PPI and 0.58 (95% CI 0.47-0.68) for CPS (P < 0.0001). Using the net reclassification index, 67% of patients were correctly reclassified using PPI instead of CPS for 30-day survival (P = 0.0005). CPS and PPI had similar accuracy for 100-day survival (AUC 0.62 vs. 0.64; P = 0.58). CONCLUSION: We found that PPI was more accurate than CPS when used to discriminate survival at 30 days, but not at 100 days. This study highlights the reason and timing for using PPI to facilitate survival predictions.
Authors: Jenna Wong; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra; Peter R Rijnbeek; Rishi J Desai; Jenna M Reps; Sengwee Toh Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 5.228
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
Authors: Sofia Molina; Gabriela Martinez-Zayas; Paula V Sainz; Cheuk H Leung; Liang Li; Horiana B Grosu; Roberto Adachi; David E Ost Journal: Chest Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 10.262
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
Authors: Patrick C Stone; Christina Chu; Chris Todd; Jane Griffiths; Anastasia Kalpakidou; Vaughan Keeley; Rumana Z Omar; Victoria Vickerstaff Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 3.752