Palliative Prognostic Index in Estimating Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer in a Tertiary Palliative Care Setting - A Clinical Audit

Abstract Background The 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. Methods Patients 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. Results A 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). Conclusions The 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.

Download Full-text

Validation of the Palliative Prognostic Index, Performance Status–Based Palliative Prognostic Index and Chinese Prognostic Scale in a home palliative care setting for patients with advanced cancer in China

10.21203/rs.3.rs-29757/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jun Zhou ◽

Sitao Xu ◽

Ziye Cao ◽

Jing Tang ◽

Xiang Fang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Characteristic Curve ◽

Performance Status ◽

Mainland China ◽

Prognostic Index ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Palliative Care Setting ◽

Palliative Prognostic Index

Abstract Background: The 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.Methods: Patients 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. Results: A 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).Conclusions: The 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.

Download Full-text

Validation of the Palliative Prognostic Index, Performance Status–based Palliative Prognostic Index and Chinese Prognostic Scale in a Home Palliative Care Setting for Patients With Advanced Cancer in China

10.21203/rs.3.rs-29757/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jun Zhou ◽

Sitao Xu ◽

Ziye Cao ◽

Jing Tang ◽

Ling Qin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Characteristic Curve ◽

Performance Status ◽

Mainland China ◽

Prognostic Index ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Palliative Care Setting ◽

Palliative Prognostic Index

Abstract Background:Thepredictive value of theprognostic tool for patients with advanced cancer isuncertainin 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.Methods:Patients 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.Results: A 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).Conclusions: The 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.

Download Full-text

Validation of the Palliative Prognostic Index, Performance Status–Based Palliative Prognostic Index and Chinese Prognostic Scale in a Home Palliative Care Setting for Patients with Advanced Cancer in China

10.21203/rs.3.rs-29757/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jun Zhou ◽

Sitao Xu ◽

Ziye Cao ◽

Jing Tang ◽

Ling Qin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Characteristic Curve ◽

Performance Status ◽

Mainland China ◽

Prognostic Index ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Palliative Care Setting ◽

Palliative Prognostic Index

Abstract Background: The 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.Methods: Patients 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. Results: A 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).Conclusions: The 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.

Download Full-text