Context: Previous studies suggest that clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS) may have reduced the accuracy of objective indicators for prognostication in palliative care. Objectives: We 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. Methods: We 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. Results: We 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. Conclusion: Overall, 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.
- clinical prediction
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Clinical Neurology
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine