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

Objective: Association between physical symptoms and psychosocial difficulties of cancer patients has been reported widely. Nevertheless, the effects of pain and other symptom control on anxiety in such patients have not been investigated well. We investigated the association of improvement of pain and other symptoms with patient anxiety, and assessed factors associated with improvement of such symptoms. Methods: Data of patients with advanced cancer admitted to a palliative care unit during August 2018 - June 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Severity of pain, other symptoms, and anxiety was assessed by the Support Team Assessment Schedule Japanese version (STAS-J) administered at admission and after 2 weeks. Patients\' physical data, their Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) at admission, and their overall survival were collected and recorded. Results: Data of 701 patients were analyzed. Improvement of pain or other symptoms after 2 weeks was not associated with the PPI total score or actual survival (P = .105 and .999). Patients with higher anxiety on admission experienced improvement of pain or other symptoms more frequently (P = .005). Worsening of anxiety was observed less in patients who experienced improvement in pain or other symptoms after 2 weeks (P = .027). Conclusion: Pain or other symptoms of patients with advanced cancer was improved irrespective of the general condition indicated with actual survival and prognosis-predictive factors. These findings suggest the importance of pain and other symptoms\' improvement and its important roles in the management of patient psychosocial problems such as anxiety.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the prognostic value of scoring systems based on physical and blood parameters in terminally ill patients with cancer.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the prognostic abilities of Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Laboratory Prognostic Score (LPS), and Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP).
METHODS: We included 989 terminally ill patients with cancer who consulted for admission to our palliative care unit. We compared the discriminative abilities of PPI, LPS, and PaP for 7-, 14-, 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality. Additionally, we compared the estimated median survival of PPI, LPS, and PaP with the actual survival (AS). The prediction accuracy was considered adequate if the ratio of estimated median survival in days to AS in days fell within the range of 0.66 to 1.33, optimistic when it exceeds 1.33, and pessimistic when it falls below 0.66.
RESULTS: The accuracies for 7-, 14-, 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were superior for PPI, LPS, LPS, PaP, and PaP (72%, 73%, 71%, 80%, and 82%), respectively, although the discriminative abilities for 7-, 14-, 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were similar among the three scoring systems. The prediction accuracy of survival (PAS) was similar among the three scoring systems with adequate, optimistic, and pessimistic rates of 36%-41%, 20%-46%, and 16%-38%, respectively. PAS was superior in actual survival for 14-59 days.
CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic abilities of PPI, LPS, and PaP were comparable. The most adequate estimation occurred for patients with AS for 14-59 days. A more accurate prognostic model is needed for patients with longer survival.

BACKGROUND: Staying at home during the dying process is important for many patients; and palliative care units (PCUs) can help facilitate home death. This study compared patient survival between those who were discharged to home from a palliative care unit and those who were not, and aimed to identify the factors associated with home death after the discharge.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a database of patients admitted to a palliative care unit at Kouseiren Takaoka Hospital in Japan. All consecutive patients admitted to the hospital\'s PCU between October 2016 and March 2020 were enrolled. Patient survival and factors potentially associated with survival and place of death were obtained. A total of 443 patients with cancer were analyzed, and 167 patients were discharged to home and 276 were not.
RESULTS: Propensity score matching analyses revealed that median survival time was significantly longer in patients who were discharged to home than those who were not (57 vs. 27 days, P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis identified that worse Palliative Prognostic Index (odds ratio [OR] = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-1.44, p = 0.025) and family members\' desire for home death (OR = 6.30, 95% CI = 2.32-17.1, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with home death after their discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: Discharge to home from palliative care units might have some positive impacts on patient survival.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians can appropriately terminate treatment or reduce treatment intensity by determining prognostic factors of end-of-life chemotherapy. In particular, it provides important information for patients with hematological malignancies who receive chemotherapy until near-the-end of life compared with patients with solid tumors. This study aimed to clarify whether existing prognostic tools are associated with the survival in patients with end-of-life hematological malignancies who received chemotherapy.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 247 patients diagnosed with hematological malignancies and died at our university hospital hematology ward between May 2015 and May 2021. We performed multivariate analysis in 82 (33.2%) patients who received end-of-life chemotherapy using the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) and inflammation-based prognostic models, such as the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), and Controlling Nutrition Status (CONUT).
RESULTS: On comparing 82 patients who received end-of-life chemotherapy with 165 patients who did not, the proportion of patients with PPI group A, GPS score = 0, and CONUT normal/mild was significantly higher among patients who received chemotherapy. In multivariate analysis, we identified PPI groups B (2.0 < PPI ≤ 4.0) and C (PPI > 4.0) [hazard ratio (HR) 2.1290, 95% CI 1.1830-3.828, P = .01166, respectively] and age ≥ 65 years (HR 2.0170, 95% CI 1.1280-3.607, P = .01805) were associated with overall survival.
CONCLUSIONS: PPI use and age were independent associating factors for patients with hematological malignancies receiving end-of-life chemotherapy. PPI, a popular prognostic tool may be helpful for patients and hematologists to make decisions about end-of-life care.

OBJECTIVE: In the end-of-life stage of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), predicting survival is essential to determine treatment procedure and place of care. Several reports have compared actual survival (AS) and clinical prediction of survival (CPS), a subjective prognostic prediction by attending physicians. However, specific studies focusing on patients with HNSCC are limited. Likewise, a comparison of the accuracy of CPS and palliative prognostic index (PPI), a prognostic tool using subjective assessment, has not been sufficiently investigated. This study aimed to clarify the correlation between AS and CPS/PPI and compare the accuracy of CPS and PPI in end-stage HNSCC.
METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with HNSCC in the end-of-life setting. Patients were recruited from the National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center between April 2011 and March 2019. Data on basic demography and clinical parameters when patients decided to start end-of-life care at the head and neck oncology division were collected. We examined the correlation between AS and CPS using Spearman\'s correlation coefficients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of CPS and PPI for 30-day survival prediction were compared for predictive accuracy.
RESULTS: Among 98 eligible patients, 59 patients were enrolled in this study and analyzed. Of the 59 patients, CPS and PPI were calculated for 30 patients, whereas, only the PPI was calculated for 29 patients. The median AS and CPS were 35 (IQR: 9-73) days and 30 (IQR: 7-83) days, respectively. CPS and PPI (30 cases) were moderately correlated (r = 0.72, p<0.01). AS and CPS/PPI (30 cases) were significantly correlated (p<0.01) and showed a strong correlation (r = 0.86 and 0.80, respectively). In the 30-day survival prediction, the AUROCs of CPS and PPI (30 cases) were 0.967 (95%CI: 0.919-1) and 0.884 (95%CI: 0.767-1), respectively. Both CPS and PPI (30 cases) showed high accuracy in predicting the 30-day prognosis, with no significant difference (p = 0.077). The AUROC of PPI (59 cases) was 0.840 (95%CI: 0.711-0.969).
CONCLUSIONS: AS and CPS/PPI showed significant correlations. The high accuracy of CPS may have been influenced by the fact that multiple head and neck cancer specialists at a comprehensive cancer center estimated CPS. Both CPS and PPI showed high prognostic accuracy in predicting 30-day survival. This suggests that PPI is useful in centers among physicians and healthcare workers unfamiliar with head and neck cancer.

UNASSIGNED: The palliative prognostic index (PPI) predicts the life expectancy of patients with terminally ill cancer in hospice settings. This study aimed to evaluate PPI as a prognostic tool for predicting the life expectancy of patients with hematological malignancies admitted to the acute ward.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 308 patients with hematological malignancies admitted to the hematological ward at a medical center between January 2016 and December 2017 were consecutively enrolled. PPI was scored within 24 h of admission. All patients were categorized into 3 groups by PPI for comparing survival and in-hospital mortality rates.
UNASSIGNED: The median survival times were 38.4, 3.6, and 1.1 months for patients with good, intermediate, and poor prognostic group, respectively. The hazard ratio was 2.31 (95% CI 1.59-3.35, p < 0.001) when comparing the intermediate and good prognosis groups, and 3.90 (95% CI 2.52-6.03, p < 0.001) when comparing the poor and good prognosis groups. Forty-five (14.6%) patients died at discharge; in-hospital mortality rates among the good, intermediate, and poor prognostic groups were 9.0%, 23.4%, and 46.4%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for in-hospital mortality was 1.96 (95% CI, 0.80-4.82, p = 0.14) and 5.25 (95% CI, 2.01-13.7, p < 0.001) for patients in the intermediate and poor prognostic groups compared to those in the good prognostic group.
UNASSIGNED: PPI is an accurate prognostic tool for predicting survival times and in-hospital mortality rates in patients with hematological malignancies in an acute ward setting. PPI could assist clinicians in discussing end-of-life issues and in referring patients with hematological malignancies to palliative care.

UNASSIGNED: Palliative care patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) often experience dysphagia and airway trouble; thus, each patient requires a specific palliative care plan based on their prognostication. However, no established specific prognostic tool performed on the day of starting end-of-life care is available for such patients. We assessed the accuracy of Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and palliative prognostic index (PPI) and their combination to establish a specified prognostic tool for patients with HNSCC in end-of-life setting.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective clinical chart review was undertaken on patients with HNSCC in end-of life setting who were decided in Kagawa University Hospital and National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center between April 2011 and March 2019. The patients were divided into 2 categories according to GPS (0-1 and 2) and PPI (groups A-B and C). These were combined into 4 categories (PPI group A-B and GPS score 0-1: good; PPI group A-B and GPS score 2: intermediate; PPI group C and GPS score 2: poor; and PPI group C and GPS score 0-1: others). The survival curves were compared for the former 3 categories.
UNASSIGNED: The median survival of the scores 0-1 and 2 on GPS were 114 (72-148) and 39 (25-52) days, respectively (P < .01). These of groups A-B and C on PPI were 79 (64-99) and 16 (9-29) days, respectively (P < .01). The median survival of the good, intermediate, and poor categories was 127 (73-149), 64 (44-80), and 15 (9-27) days, respectively (P < .01 among all categories).
UNASSIGNED: In this study, the survival of terminally ill patients with HNSCC can be predicted by the GPS, PPI, and their combination with sufficient probability.

Prognostic prediction has been reported to affect the decision of doctors and non-physician health care providers such as nurses, social workers, pastors, and hospice volunteers on the selection of appropriate medical interventions. This was a case of a 65-year-old woman who presented with a poor oral intake. The patient had a history of sigmoid colon cancer with abdominal wall metastasis and peritoneal dissemination. On the day of admission, nausea, anorexia, and malaise were noted, requiring immediate intervention. The patient\'s prognosis was predicted using the Palliative Prognostic Index. The pharmacist suggested the use of dexamethasone tablets in order to alleviate the patient\'s symptoms. Indeed, the administration of dexamethasone alleviated the symptoms of nausea, loss of appetite, and malaise. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report to demonstrate that prognosis prediction is important not only for other medical staff but also for pharmacists when deciding the need to initiate a treatment and continue such treatment, and when providing pharmacist interventions.