• Jun Zhou, Sitao Xu, Ziye Cao, Jing Tang, Xiang Fang, Ling Qin, Fangping Zhou, Yuzhen He, Xueren Zhong, Mingcai Hu, Yan Wang, Fengjuan Lu, Yongzheng Bao, Xiangheng Dai, and Qiang Wu.
• Department of Spine Surgery, Yuebei People's Hospital Affiliated to Shantou University Medical College, Shaoguan, Guangdong, China.
• BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Oct 31; 19 (1): 167.

BackgroundThe predictive value of the prognostic tool for patients with advanced cancer is uncertain in mainland China, especially in the home-based palliative care (HPC) setting. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), the Performance Status-Based Palliative Prognostic Index (PS-PPI), and the Chinese Prognosis Scale (ChPS) for patients with advanced cancer in the HPC setting in mainland China.MethodsPatients with advanced cancer admitted to the hospice center of Yuebei People's Hospital between January 2014 and December 2018 were retrospectively calculated the scores according to the three prognostic tools. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare survival times among different risk groups. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the predictive value. The accuracy of 21-, 42- and 90-day survival was compared among the three prognostic tools.ResultsA total of 1863 patients were included. Survival time among the risk groups of all prognostic tools was significantly different from each other except for the PPI. The AUROC of the ChPS was significantly higher than that of the PPI and PS-PPI for 7-, 14, 21-, 42-, 90-, 120-, 150- and 180-day survival (P < 0.05). The AUROC of the PPI and PS-PPI were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.05).ConclusionsThe ChPS is more suitable than the PPI and PS-PPI for advanced cancer patients in the HPC setting. More researches are needed to verify the predictive value of the ChPS, PPI, and PS-PPI in the HPC setting in the future.

22 keywords...

hide…