External validation of the number of risk factors score in a palliative care outpatient clinic at a comprehensive cancer center

Predicting the survival of patients with painful tumours treated with palliative radiotherapy: a secondary analysis using the 3-variable number-of-risk-factors model

BACKGROUND

The 3-variable number-of-risk-factors (NRF) model is a prognostic tool for patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy (PRT). However, there is little research on the NRF model for patients with painful non-bone-metastasis tumours treated with PRT, and the efficacy of the NRF model in predicting survival is unclear to date. Therefore, we aimed to assess the prognostic accuracy of a 3-variable NRF model in patients undergoing PRT for bone and non- bone-metastasis tumours.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of studies on PRT for bone-metastasis (BM) and PRT for miscellaneous painful tumours (MPTs), including non-BM tumours. Patients were grouped in the NRF model and survival was compared between groups. Discrimination was evaluated using a time-independent C-index and a time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). A calibration curve was used to assess the agreement between predicted and observed survival.

RESULTS

We analysed 485 patients in the BM group and 302 patients in the MPT group. The median survival times in the BM group for groups I, II, and III were 35.1, 10.1, and 3.3 months, respectively (P < 0.001), while in the MPT group, they were 22.1, 9.5, and 4.6 months, respectively (P < 0.001). The C-index was 0.689 in the BM group and 0.625 in the MPT group. In the BM group, time-dependent AUROCs over 2 to 24 months ranged from 0.738 to 0.765, while in the MPT group, they ranged from 0.650 to 0.689, with both groups showing consistent accuracy over time. The calibration curve showed a reasonable agreement between the predicted and observed survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The NRF model predicted survival moderately well in both the BM and MPT groups.

Prediction of post-radiotherapy survival for bone metastases: a comparison of the 3-variable number of risk factors model with the new Katagiri scoring system

We investigated patient survival after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases while comparing the prognostic accuracies of the 3-variable number of risk factors (NRF) model and the new Katagiri scoring system (Katagiri score). Overall, 485 patients who received radiotherapy for bone metastases were grouped as per the NRF model (groups I, II and III) and Katagiri score (low-, intermediate- and high-risk). Survival was compared using the log-rank or log-rank trend test. Independent prognostic factors were identified using multivariate Cox regression analyses (MCRA). MCRA and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare both models' accuracy. For the 376 evaluable patients, the overall survival (OS) rates decreased significantly in the higher-tier groups of both models (P < 0.001). All evaluated factors except 'previous chemotherapy status' differed significantly between groups. Both models exhibited independent predictive power (P < 0.001). Per NRF model, hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.44 (P = 0.099) and 2.944 (P < 0.001), respectively, for groups II and III, relative to group I. Per Katagiri score, HRs for intermediate- and high-risk groups were 4.02 (P < 0.001) and 7.09 (P < 0.001), respectively, relative to the low-risk group. Areas under the curve (AUC) for predicting 6-, 18- and 24-month mortality were significantly higher when using the Katagiri score (P = 0.036, 0.039 and 0.022). Both models predict survival. Prognostic accuracy of the Katagiri score is superior, especially in patients with long-term survival potential; however, in patients with short prognosis, no difference occurred between both models; simplicity and patient burden should also be considered.

Measurement Properties of ID-PALL, A New Instrument for the Identification of Patients With General and Specialized Palliative Care Needs

CONTEXT

To improve access to palliative care, identification of patients in need of general or specialized palliative care is necessary. To our knowledge, no available identification instrument makes this distinction. ID-PALL is a screening instrument developed to differentiate between these patient groups.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the structural and criterion validity and the inter-rater agreement of ID-PALL.

METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, nurses and physicians assessed medical patients hospitalized for 2 to 5 days in two tertiary hospitals in Switzerland using ID-PALL. For the criterion validity, these assessments were compared to a clinical gold standard evaluation performed by palliative care specialists. Structural validity, internal consistency and inter-rater agreement were assessed.

RESULTS

2232 patients were assessed between January and December 2018, 97% by nurses and 50% by physicians. The variances for ID-PALL G and S are explained by two factors, the first one explaining most of the variance in both cases. For ID-PALL G, sensitivity ranged between 0.80 and 0.87 and specificity between 0.56 and 0.59. ID-PALL S sensitivity ranged between 0.82 and 0.94, and specificity between 0.35 and 0.64. A cut-off value of 1 delivered the optimal values for patient identification. Cronbach's alpha was 0.78 for ID-PALL G and 0.67 for ID-PALL S. The agreement rate between nurses and physicians was 71.5% for ID-PALL G and 64.6% for ID-PALL S.

CONCLUSION

ID-PALL is a promising screening instrument allowing the early identification of patients in need of general or specialized palliative care. It can be used by nurses and physicians without a specialized palliative care training. Further testing of the finalized clinical version appears warranted.

A phenomenological three-parameter model for predicting the extent of outpatient palliative care

Whether a patient receives general or specialized outpatient palliative cancer care rarely follows clear criteria, leading to undertreatment or overtreatment. Detailed scores exist to predict prognosis, but not treatment requirements, leaving caregivers to follow their intuition. As a phenomenological indicator incorporating possibly important subjective information, intuition may in fact be a helpful tool. In this prospective observational study, a score to estimate three global dimensions of patients' resources was applied: Medical prognosis, feeling of strength and feeling of support. The score results were correlated with the actual amount and effort of care required during the subsequent palliative care time. This phenomenological score correlated well with the performance index and the Hospice and Palliative care Evaluation score. Whilst various individual items correlated significantly with the score or its constituent parameters, there was no uniform coherent pattern, reflecting the complexity of palliative care and the potential value of this predictive tool.

Prognostic tools for survival prediction in advanced cancer patients: A systematic review

Survival prediction for palliative cancer patients by physicians is often optimistic. Patients with a very short life expectancy (<4 weeks) may not benefit from radiation therapy (RT), as the time to maximal symptom relief after treatment can take 4-6 weeks. We aimed to identify a prognostic tool (or tools) to predict survival of less than 4 weeks and less than 3 months in patients with advanced cancer to guide the choice of radiation dose and fractionation. We searched Embase, Medline (EBSCOhost) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) clinical databases for literature published between January 2008 and June 2018. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Prediction accuracy at less than 4 weeks and less than 3 months were compared across the prognostic tools. Reporting of prediction accuracy among the different studies was not consistent: the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) and Number of Risk Factors (NRF) best-predicted survival duration of less than 4 weeks. The PPI, performance status with Palliative Prognostic Index (PS-PPI), NRF and Survival Prediction Score (SPS) may predict 3-month survival. We recommend PPI and PaP tools to assess the likelihood of a patient surviving less than 4 weeks. If predicted to survive longer and RT is justified, the NRF tool could be used to determine survival probability less than 3 months which can then help clinicians select dose and fractionation. Future research is needed to verify the reliability of survival prediction using these prognostic tools in a radiation oncology setting.

Palliative Radiotherapy: Inpatients, Outpatients, and the Changing Role of Supportive Care in Radiation Oncology

Palliative radiotherapy is an effective treatment in alleviating many symptoms of advanced cancer. Short courses of radiotherapy provide rapid symptom relief and minimize impact on patients. Patients referred for palliative radiotherapy have many concerns beyond radiotherapy; often, these concerns are not fully addressed in traditional radiotherapy clinics. Discussions of prognosis, patient goals, and concerns are areas for improved collaboration. Innovative, dedicated palliative radiotherapy programs have developed over the past 20 years to provide holistic care to patients referred for palliative radiotherapy and have improved patient-focused outcomes. Advanced radiotherapy techniques may provide opportunities to further improve palliative radiotherapy outcomes.

Multidisciplinary Prognostication Using the Palliative Prognostic Score in an Australian Cancer Center

CONTEXT

Accurate prognostication is important in oncology and palliative care. A multidisciplinary approach to prognostication provides a novel approach, but its accuracy and application is poorly researched. In this study, we describe and analyze our experience of multidisciplinary prognostication in palliative care patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess our accuracy of prognostication using multidisciplinary team prediction of survival (MTPS) alone and within the Palliative Prognostic (PaP) Score.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all new patients referred to a palliative care consultation service in a tertiary cancer center between January 2010 and December 2011. Initial assessment data for 421 inpatients and 223 outpatients were analyzed according to inpatient and outpatient groups to evaluate the accuracy of prognostication using MTPS alone and within the PaP score (MTPS-PaP) and their correlation with overall survival.

RESULTS

Inpatients with MTPS-PaP group A, B, and C had a median survival of 10.9, 3.4, and 0.7 weeks, respectively, and a 30-day survival probability of 81%, 40%, and 10%, respectively. Outpatients with MTPS-PaP group A and B had a median survival of 17.3 and 5.1 weeks, respectively, and a 30-day survival probability of 94% and 50%, respectively. MTPS overestimated survival by a factor of 1.5 for inpatients and 1.2 for outpatients. The MTPS-PaP score correlated better than MTPS alone with overall survival.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that a multidisciplinary team approach to prognostication within routine clinical practice is possible and may substitute for single clinician prediction of survival within the PaP score without detracting from its accuracy. Multidisciplinary team prognostication can assist treating teams to recognize and articulate prognosis, facilitate treatment decisions, and plan end-of-life care appropriately. PaP was less useful in the outpatient setting, given the longer survival interval of the outpatient palliative care patient group.