Search

Background: Changes in activities of daily living in cancer patients may predict their survival. The Palliative Prognostic Index is a useful tool to evaluate cancer patients, and adding an item about activities of daily living changes might improve its predictive value. Aim: To clarify whether adding an item about activities of daily living changes improves the accuracy of Palliative Prognostic Index. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study. Setting: A total of 58 palliative care services in Japan. Participants: Patients aged >20 years diagnosed with locally extensive or metastatic cancer (including hematological neoplasms) who had been admitted to palliative care units, were receiving care by hospital-based palliative care teams, or were receiving home-based palliative care. Palliative care physicians recorded clinical variables at the first assessment and followed up patients 6 months later. Results: A total of 2425 subjects were recruited and 2343 of these had analyzable data. The C-statistic of the original Palliative Prognostic Index was 0.801, and those of modified Palliative Prognostic Indices ranged from 0.793 to 0.805 at 3 weeks. For 6-week survival predictions, the C-statistic of the original Palliative Prognostic Index was 0.802, and those of modified Palliative Prognostic Indices ranged from 0.791 to 0.799. The weighted kappa of the original Palliative Prognostic Index was 0.510, and those of modified Palliative Prognostic Indices ranged from 0.484 to 0.508. Conclusion: Adding items about activities of daily living changes to the Palliative Prognostic Index did not improve prognostic value in advanced cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the place of death has a great influence on the quality of death and dying for cancer patients, whether the survival time differs according to the place of death is unclear. The primary aim of this study was to explore potential differences in the survival time of cancer patients dying at home or in a hospital.Methods: This multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted in Japan from September 2012 through April 2014 and involved 58 specialist palliative care services.Results: Among the 2426 patients recruited, 2069 patients were analyzed for this study: 1582 receiving hospital-based palliative care and 487 receiving home-based palliative care. A total of 1607 patients actually died in a hospital, and 462 patients died at home. The survival of patients who died at home was significantly longer than the survival of patients who died in a hospital in the days' prognosis group (estimated median survival time, 13 days [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.3-15.7 days] vs 9 days [95% CI, 8.0-10.0 days]; P = .006) and in the weeks' prognosis group (36 days [95% CI, 29.9-42.1 days] vs 29 days [95% CI, 26.5-31.5 days]; P = .007) as defined by Prognosis in Palliative Care Study predictor model A. No significant difference was identified in the months' prognosis group. Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that the place of death had a significant influence on the survival time in both unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.96; P < .01) and adjusted models (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; P = .01).Conclusions: In comparison with cancer patients who died in a hospital, cancer patients who died at home had similar or longer survival. Cancer 2016;122:1453-1460. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), which uses C-reactive protein and albumin levels, is a good predictor of prognosis in cancer patients undergoing anti-tumor therapy. The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between GPS and survival among cancer patients in palliative settings, as findings in such populations have not been well described.Methods: This was a subanalysis of a multicenter, prospective, cohort study in patients who were adults, diagnosed with advanced cancer, and first referred to palliative care service in Japan. Patients who were not receiving anti-tumor therapy and who had undergone laboratory examinations were eligible. Clinical features were analyzed to investigate prognostic factors.Results: A total of 1160 patients were enrolled (41.6 % female; median age, 72 years). The independent predictors were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score of 4 (hazard ratio (HR), 1.54), liver metastasis (HR, 1.21), dyspnea (HR, 1.35), edema (HR, 1.25), prognostic performance index (HR, 1.56), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (HR, 1.43), and GPS of 2 (HR, 1.36). The sensitivity and specificity for 3-week prognosis of a GPS of 2 were 0.879 and 0.410. Median survival time with GPS of 0, 1, and 2 was 58 days (95 % confidence interval, 48-81), 43 days (37-50), and 21 days (19-24), respectively (log-rank test, p < 0.001).Conclusion: The GPS was a good prognostic indicator for cancer patients in palliative settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Accurate prognostic information in palliative care settings is needed for patients to make decisions and set goals and priorities. The Prognosis Palliative Care Study (PiPS) predictor models were presented in 2011, but have not yet been fully validated by other research teams. Objectives The primary aim of this study is to examine the accuracy and to validate the modified PiPS (using physician-proxy ratings of mental status instead of patient interviews) in three palliative care settings, namely palliative care units, hospital-based palliative care teams, and home-based palliative care services. Methods This multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted in 58 palliative care services including 16 palliative care units, 19 hospital-based palliative care teams, and 23 home-based palliative care services in Japan from September 2012 through April 2014. Results A total of 2426 subjects were recruited. For reasons including lack of followup and missing variables (primarily blood examination data), we obtained analyzable data from 2212 and 1257 patients for the modified PiPS-A and PiPS-B, respectively. In all palliative care settings, both the modified PiPS-A and PiPS-B identified three risk groups with different survival rates ( P < 0.001). The absolute agreement ranged from 56% to 60% in the PiPS-A model and 60% to 62% in the PiPS-B model. Conclusion The modified PiPS was successfully validated and can be useful in palliative care units, hospital-based palliative care teams, and home-based palliative care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]