Palliative Prognostic Index accuracy of survival prediction in an inpatient palliative care service at a Brazilian tertiary hospital

Prognostic Impact of Malignant Wounds in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Malignant wounds are lesions caused by metastasis from distant primary cancers or by direct invasion of the cutaneous structures of a primary cancer, and are most common in patients with breast or head and neck cancers. Malignant wounds not only cause physical symptoms, but also affect survival. Recognizing prognosis in terminal-stage cancer patients is necessary for both patients and health care providers. The prognostic impact of malignant wounds in patients with head and neck cancer has been poorly investigated.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the results of a prospective cohort study that investigated the dying process in patients with advanced cancer in 23 palliative care units in Japan. The primary outcome of this study was the prognostic impact of malignant wounds in patients with head and neck cancer. The difference in survival between patients with head and neck cancer who had malignant wounds and those who did not was compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 1896 patients admitted to palliative care units, 68 had head and neck cancer, and 29 of these had malignant wounds. Overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with malignant wounds than that in those without (median: 19.0 days vs 32.0 days, P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Patients with head and neck cancer who had malignant wounds had worse overall survival than those who did not.

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.

Novel Carbon Ion and Proton Partial Irradiation of Recurrent Unresectable Bulky Tumors (Particle-PATHY): Early Indication of Effectiveness and Safety

Background: We present the early results of a novel partial bulky-tumor irradiation using particles for patients with recurrent unresectable bulky tumors who failed previous state-of-the-art treatments. Methods: First, eleven consecutive patients were treated from March 2020 until December 2021. The targeted Bystander Tumor Volume (BTV) was created by subtracting 1 cm from Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) surface. It reflected approximately 30% of the central GTV volume and was irradiated with 30–45 Gy RBE (Relative Biological Effectiveness) in three consecutive fractions. The Peritumoral Immune Microenvironment (PIM) surrounding the GTV, containing nearby tissues, blood-lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes, was considered an organ at risk (OAR) and protected by highly conservative constraints. Results: With the median follow up of 6.3 months, overall survival was 64% with a median survival of 6.7 months; 46% of patients were progression-free. The average tumor volume regression was 61% from the initial size. The symptom control rate was 91%, with an average increase of the Karnofsky Index of 20%. The abscopal effect has been observed in 60% of patients. Conclusions: Partial bulky-tumor irradiation is an effective, safe and well tolerated treatment for patients with unresectable recurrent bulky disease. Abscopal effects elucidate an immunogenic pathway contribution. Extensive tumor shrinkage in some patients might permit definitive treatment—otherwise previously impossible.

Goals of Care for Patients with Severe Comorbid Illnesses Hospitalized for an Acute Deterioration

How to cite this article: Bande B. Goals of Care for Patients with Severe Comorbid Illnesses Hospitalized for an Acute Deterioration. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):414-415.