• Yusuke Hiratsuka, Sang-Yeon Suh, David Hui, Tatsuya Morita, Masanori Mori, Shunsuke Oyamada, Koji Amano, Kengo Imai, Mika Baba, Hiroyuki Kohara, Takayuki Hisanaga, Isseki Maeda, Jun Hamano, and Akira Inoue.
• Department of Palliative Medicine (Y.H.), Takeda General Hospital, Aizuwakamatsu, Japan; Department of Palliative Medicine (Y.H., A.I.), Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan; Department of Family Medicine (S.Y.S.), Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang-si, South Korea; Department of Medicine (S.Y.S.), Dongguk University Medical School, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Palliative Care (D.H.), Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Division of Palliative and Supportive Care (T.M., M.M.), Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan; Department of Biostatistics (S.O.), JORTC Data Center, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Palliative Medicine (K.A.), National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Seirei Hospice (K.I.), Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan; Department of Palliative Medicine (M.B.), Suita Tokushukai Hospital, Suita, Japan; Department of Internal Medicine (H.K.), Hatsukaichi Memorial Hospital, Hatsukaichi, Japan; Department of Palliative Medicine (T.H.), Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan; Department of Palliative Care (I.M.), Senri Chuo Hospital, Toyonaka, Japan; Division of Clinical Medicine (J.H.), Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
• J Pain Symptom Manage. 2022 Oct 1; 64 (4): 391-399.

ContextSeveral prognostic models such as the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) have been developed to complement clinician's prediction of survival (CPS). However, few studies with large scales have been conducted to show which prognostic tool had better performance than CPS in patients with weeks of survival.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the prognostic performance of the PPS, PPI, PaP, and CPS in inpatients admitted to palliative care units (PCUs).MethodsThis study was part of a multi-center prospective observational study involving patients admitted to PCUs in Japan. We computed their prognostic performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and calibration plots for seven, 14-, 30- and 60-day survival.ResultsWe included 1896 patients with a median overall survival of 19 days. The AUROC was 73% to 84% for 60-day and 30-day survival, 75% to 84% for 14-day survival, and 80% to 87% for seven-day survival. The calibration plot demonstrated satisfactory agreement between the observational and predictive probability for the four indices in all timeframes. Therefore, all four prognostic indices showed good performance. CPS and PaP consistently had significantly better performance than the PPS and PPI from one-week to two-month timeframes.ConclusionThe PPS, PPI, PaP, and CPS had relatively good performance in patients admitted to PCUs with weeks of survival. CPS and PaP had significantly better performance than the PPS and PPI. CPS may be sufficient for experienced clinicians while PPS may help to improve prognostic confidence for inexperienced clinicians.Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…