• Seok-Joon Yoon, Sang-Yeon Suh, David Hui, Sung-Eun Choi, Ryohei Tatara, Hiroaki Watanabe, Hiroyuki Otani, and Tatsuya Morita.
• Department of Family Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea.
• J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021 Jun 1; 61 (6): 1180-1187.

ContextPrevious studies suggest that clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS) may have reduced the accuracy of objective indicators for prognostication in palliative care.ObjectivesWe aimed to examine the accuracy of CPS alone, compared to the original Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), and five clinical/laboratory variables of the PaP in patients with far advanced cancer.MethodsWe compared the discriminative accuracy of three prediction models (the PaP-CPS [the score of the categorical CPS of PaP], PaP without CPS [sum of the scores of only the objective variables of PaP], and PaP total score) across 3 settings: inpatient palliative care consultation team, palliative care unit, and home palliative care. We computed the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for 30-day survival and concordance index (C-index) to compare the discriminative accuracy of these three models.ResultsWe included a total of 1534 subjects with median survival of 34.0 days. The AUROC and C-index in the three settings were 0.816-0.896 and 0.732-0.799 for the PaP total score, 0.808-0.884 and 0.713-0.782 for the PaP-CPS, and 0.726-0.815 and 0.672-0.728 for the PaP without CPS, respectively. The PaP total score and PaP-CPS showed similar AUROCs and C-indices across the three settings. The PaP total score had significantly higher AUROCs and C-indices than the PaP without CPS across the three settings.ConclusionOverall, the PaP total score, PaP-CPS, and PaP without CPS showed good discriminative performances. However, the PaP total score and PaP-CPS were significantly more accurate than the PaP without CPS.Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…