Who makes it out alive?—Predicting survival to discharge of hospital patients referred to residential aged care

Palliative prognostic scores for survival prediction of cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The palliative prognostic score is the most widely validated prognostic tool for cancer survival prediction, with modified versions available. A systematic evaluation of palliative prognostic score tools is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance and prognostic utility of palliative prognostic score, delirium-palliative prognostic score, and palliative prognostic score without clinician prediction in predicting 30-day survival of cancer patients and to compare their performance.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies and grey literature published from inception to June 2, 2023. English studies must assess palliative prognostic score, delirium-palliative prognostic score, or palliative prognostic score without clinician-predicted survival for 30-day survival in adults aged 18 years and older with any stage or type of cancer. Outcomes were pooled using the random effects model or summarized narratively when meta-analysis was not possible.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies (n = 10 617 patients) were included. Palliative prognostic score is an accurate prognostic tool (pooled area under the curve [AUC] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79 to 0.84) and outperforms palliative prognostic score without clinician-predicted survival (pooled AUC = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.78), suggesting that the original palliative prognostic score should be preferred. The meta-analysis found palliative prognostic score and delirium-palliative prognostic score performance to be comparable. Most studies reported survival probabilities corresponding to the palliative prognostic score risk groups, and higher risk groups were statistically significantly associated with shorter survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative prognostic score is a validated prognostic tool for cancer patients that can enhance clinicians' confidence and accuracy in predicting survival. Future studies should investigate if accuracy differs depending on clinician characteristics. Reporting of validation studies must be improved, as most studies were at high risk of bias, primarily because calibration was not assessed.

Facing uncertainty - Pilot testing of a palliative prognostic index training with hospital aged care assessment teams

BACKGROUND

Prognostic avoidance can delay discussions about older hospital patients' life expectancy. This pilot study examined the effects of a prognostic training program on hospital clinicians' knowledge and confidence in identifying older patients at risk of dying.

METHODS

Fifty-seven clinicians from aged care assessment teams at two Australian hospitals were introduced to the Palliative Prognostic Index, a 5-item checklist indicating prognoses between 3 and 6 weeks. Mixed-methods training evaluation included pre-post-training surveys and semi-structured interviews, conducted three months post-training.

RESULTS

Clinicians used a combination of experience, knowledge, and intuition as strategies to generate prognoses. Allied health staff relied on intuition more often than medical and nursing staff. Prognostic tools were rarely used. Pre-post-training comparisons showed significant improvements in clinicians' knowledge and confidence in identifying signs of dying, particularly amongst allied health. Follow-up interviews highlighted advantages and challenges of using prognostic tools. Recommendations are made for addressing these.

Performance of the Palliative Prognostic Index for cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinician predicted survival for cancer patients is often inaccurate, and prognostic tools may be helpful, such as the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI). The PPI development study reported that when PPI score is greater than 6, it predicted survival of less than 3 weeks with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 85%. When PPI score is greater than 4, it predicts survival of less than 6 weeks with a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 77%. However, subsequent PPI validation studies have evaluated various thresholds and survival durations, and it is unclear which is most appropriate for use in clinical practice. With the development of numerous prognostic tools, it is also unclear which is most accurate and feasible for use in multiple care settings.

AIM

We evaluated PPI model performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients based on different thresholds and survival durations and compared it to other prognostic tools.

DESIGN

This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302679). We calculated the pooled sensitivity and specificity of each threshold using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and pooled diagnostic odds ratio of each survival duration using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to compare PPI performance with clinician predicted survival and other prognostic tools. Findings which could not be included in meta-analyses were summarised narratively.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CINAHL, ProQuest and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from inception till 7 January 2022. Both retrospective and prospective observational studies evaluating PPI performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients in any setting were included. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies evaluating PPI performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients were included (n = 19,714 patients). Across meta-analyses of 12 PPI score thresholds and survival durations, we found that PPI was most accurate for predicting survival of <3 weeks and <6 weeks. Survival prediction of <3 weeks was most accurate when PPI score>6 (pooled sensitivity = 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.75, specificity = 0.80, 95% CI 0.75-0.85). Survival prediction of <6 weeks was most accurate when PPI score>4 (pooled sensitivity = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.78, specificity = 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.80). Comparative meta-analyses found that PPI performed similarly to Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score in predicting <3-week survival, but less accurately in <30-day survival prediction. However, Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score only provide <30-day survival probabilities, and it is uncertain how this would be helpful for patients and clinicians. PPI also performed similarly to clinician predicted survival in predicting <30-day survival. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution as limited studies were available for comparative meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high for all studies, mainly due to poor reporting of statistical analyses. while there were low applicability concerns for most (38/39) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI score>6 should be used for <3-week survival prediction, and PPI score>4 for <6-week survival. PPI is easily scored and does not require invasive tests, and thus would be easily implemented in multiple care settings. Given the acceptable accuracy of PPI in predicting <3- and <6-week survival and its objective nature, it could be used to cross-check clinician predicted survival especially when clinicians have doubts about their own judgement, or when clinician estimates seem to be less reliable. Future studies should adhere to the reporting guidelines and provide comprehensive analyses of PPI model performance.

The ostrich approach - Prognostic avoidance, strategies and barriers to assessing older hospital patients' risk of dying

BACKGROUND

Predicting older patients' life expectancy is an important yet challenging task. Hospital aged care assessment teams advise treating teams on older patients' type and place of care, directly affecting quality of care. Yet, little is known about their experiences with prognostication.

METHODS

Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven geriatricians/ registrars, ten nurses and three allied health staff from aged care assessment teams across two hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

To generate prognoses, clinicians used analytical thinking, intuition, assessments from others, and pattern matching. Prognostic tools were an underutilised resource. Barriers to recognition of dying included: diffusion of responsibility regarding whose role it is to identify patients at end-of-life; lack of feedback about whether a prognosis was correct; system pressures to pursue active treatment and vacate beds; avoidance of end-of-life discussions; lack of confidence, knowledge and training in prognostication and pandemic-related challenges.