Comparison of the accuracy of clinicians' prediction of survival and Palliative Prognostic Score: an East Asian cross-cultural study.

<bold>Purpose: </bold>No study has been conducted to compare the clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS) with Palliative Prognostic Scores (PaP) across countries. We aimed to compare the performance of the CPS in PaP (PaP-CPS), the PaP without the CPS, and the PaP total scores in patients with advanced cancer in three East Asian countries.<bold>Methods: </bold>We compared the discriminative accuracy of the three predictive models (the PaP-CPS [the score of the categorical CPS of PaP], the PaP without the CPS [sum of the scores of only the objective variables of PaP], and the PaP total score) in patients admitted to palliative care units (PCUs) in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for 30-day survival to compare the discriminative accuracy of these three models.<bold>Results: </bold>We analyzed 2,072 patients from three countries. The AUROC for the PaP total scores was 0.84 in patients in Japan, 0.76 in Korea, and 0.79 in Taiwan. The AUROC of the PaP-CPS was 0.82 in patients in Japan, 0.75 in Korea, and 0.78 in Taiwan. The AUROC of the PaP without the CPS was 0.75 in patients in Japan, 0.66 in Korea, and 0.67 in Taiwan.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>The PaP total scores and the PaP-CPS consistently showed similar discriminative accuracy in predicting 30-day survival in patients admitted to PCUs in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. It may be sufficient for experienced clinicians to use the CPS alone for estimating the short-term survival (less than one month) of patients with far-advanced cancer. The PaP may help to improve prognostic confidence and further reduce subjective variations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]