Validation of the Simplified Palliative Prognostic Index to Predict Survival for Advanced Cancer Patients in Home Hospice Setting

Background: The simplified Palliative Prognostic Index (sPPI) substitutes a single item from the Communication Capacity Scale (CCS) for the delirium item of the original PPI. This study aimed to examine the validity of the sPPI for patients with advanced cancer in a home-based hospice care setting.Methods: This study included 75 patients with advanced cancer who received home-based hospice care. We used medical records maintained by professional hospice nurses who had visited the patients in their homes. Based on their sPPI score, patients were divided into three groups—A (<4), B (≥4 and <6), and C (≥6)—to compare survival. Further, we investigated the sPPI’s accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and sensitivity and specificity for 3- and 6-week survival. We used three sPPIs including different substitutions for the delirium item (two methods using the CCS and one using the Korean Nursing Delirium Screening Scale).Results: The median survival was 60–61 days for group A, 27–30 days for group B, and 12–16 days for group C. The difference in survival was significant (P<0.05). The AUC was 0.814–0.867 for 3-week survival and 0.736–0.779 for 6-week survival. For 3- and 6-week survival, prognostic prediction showed sensitivities of 76.2%–90.9% and 76.3%–86.8%, and specificities of 64.2%–88.7% and 51.4%–70.3%, respectively.Conclusion: The sPPI, which is measured by professional hospice nurses, has acceptable validity to predict survival for patients with advanced cancer in a home hospice setting in South Korea.

Download Full-text

Development of Biological Prognostic Score Versions 2 and 3 for Advanced Cancer Patients and a Prospective Study on the Prediction Accuracy: Comparison with the Palliative Prognostic Index

Palliative Care Research ◽

10.2512/jspm.12.140 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 140-148 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Masahide Omichi ◽

Saya Konoike ◽

Yuji Yamada ◽

Akira Takahashi ◽

Masahiro Narita ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prospective Study ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Prediction Accuracy ◽

Prognostic Score ◽

Prognostic Index ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Accuracy Comparison ◽

Palliative Prognostic Index ◽

A Prospective Study

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

BMC Palliative Care ◽

10.1186/s12904-020-00676-0 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

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/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

Download Full-text

Analysis of the Impact of Personalized Nursing Service and Hospice Care on the Quality of Life of Elderly Cancer Patients

Tobacco Regulatory Science ◽

10.18001/trs.7.4.24 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 469-473

Author(s):

Ting Fang ◽

Nian Wang ◽

Meng Chen ◽

Hongmei Ma

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Hospice Care ◽

Pain Treatment ◽

Control Group ◽

Study Group ◽

The Difference ◽

The Impact

Objective Explore the impact of personalized nursing services and hospice care on the quality of life of elderly patients with advanced cancer. Method We selected 80 elderly cancer patients admitted to our hospital from September 2020 to May 2021, and divided these patients into a study group and a control group using a random number table method. The patients in the control group used conventional nursing methods to treat and care for the patients, and the patients in the study group used hospice care measures and combined personalized nursing measures. The quality of life and pain treatment effects of the two groups of patients before and after treatment were compared. Result Before treatment, the quality-of-life scores of the two groups of patients were low, and there was no statistical difference (P>0.05); After treatment, the quality of life of the two groups of patients improved, but compared with the control group, the improvement was more obvious in the study group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). In terms of pain treatment effect, the total effective rate of pain treatment in the study group was 87.5%, which was significantly better than the 62.5% in the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Personalized nursing services and hospice care are conducive to improving the survival and treatment of elderly patients with advanced cancer, and can be used as a clinical application program for the care of advanced cancer patients.

Download Full-text

Next-generation sequencing ordering trends in the cancer trajectory.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.10104 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 10104-10104

Author(s):

Joseph Ma ◽

Chelsea Hagmann ◽

Alexandra Dullea ◽

Winnie S Wang ◽

Warren Yau ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Next Generation Sequencing ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Metastatic Disease ◽

Primary Objective ◽

Next Generation ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

The Difference ◽

Generation Sequencing ◽

Tumor Profiling

10104 Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) molecular tumor profiling is increasingly being ordered for advanced cancer patients to evaluate non-traditional therapeutic options. The timing of when NGS is ordered relative to date of diagnosis, palliative care (PC) consultation, and death remains unknown. The primary objective of this study was to examine NGS ordering patterns among cancer patients. Methods: This was a single center, retrospective data analysis in cancer patients at our institution between January 2011 and February 2016. Cancer patients ≥16 yrs of age were identified from a tumor registry and matched to an existing NGS tumor profiling database. Additional data were collected from an electronic medical record and compiled into a single database. Differences in the date of when NGS was ordered compared to date of diagnosis, PC consultation, and/or date of death were determined. A Mann-Whitney rank sum test examined differences in patients where NGS was ordered relative to the date of PC consultation. Logistic regression examined variables possibly associated with PC consultation. Results: Analysis included 1596 (807 women) cancer patients. Mean±SD age was 55.5±15.2 years, 30.8% (n = 492) of patients had metastatic disease, with breast and lung the most common cancers. The difference between date of cancer diagnosis and date of NGS order was 1053.6±1568.5 days (n = 1546). The difference between date of NGS order and date of death was 221.2.4±186.6 days. Two-hundred and fifty-one patients (15.7%) received a PC consultation, of which 82 patients had a NGS order before the PC consultation and 169 patients had a NGS order after the PC consultation. The mean difference in number of days between a NGS order before versus after a PC consultation was 147.3±216.8 vs. 179.8±169.7 days (p < 0.005). Four-hundred and sixty-six (29%) patients have died with 121 receiving a PC consultation. Metastatic disease, but not age and sex, was associated with PC completion (OR 1.7; 95%CI 1.27-2.21). Conclusions: NGS was frequently ordered near the time of death. PC consultations were completed in a minority of patients. NGS ordering in advanced cancer patients may serve as a trigger for PC consultation.

Download Full-text