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.

UNASSIGNED: A better understanding of irreversible prognoses in palliative care is crucial for improving patients\' quality of life and their sense of dignity. We examined whether measurements of meridian electrical conductance can noninvasively and objectively predict survival time in a hospice patient population.
UNASSIGNED: This was a single-center cohort study. Between 2019 and 2020, we measured skin conductance from 24 representative acupoints of 12 meridians on both sides of the body in 181 advanced cancer patients within 48 h of hospitalization and monitored their survival time. The Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP Score) was calculated for each patient, classifying them into one of three prognosis groups: Group A, B, or C. Factors associated with short-term and long-term survival were identified using multivariate regression analysis. Statistical differences in survival times were analyzed between the meridian electrical conductance measurements and PaP Scores.
UNASSIGNED: Analyses of the clinicopathological data from terminal cancer patients revealed that male sex, mean meridian electrical conductance measurements of ≤8.8 μA, and PaP Scores in Group C were independent predictors of short-term survival. Mean meridian electrical conductance measurements of ≤8.8 μA demonstrated good sensitivity (85.1%) and adequate specificity (60.6%) for short-term survival. A survival curve analysis revealed a mortality rate of 90.6% at 30 days among patients with meridian electrical conductance measurements of ≤8.8 μA. A mean meridian electrical conductance measurement of ≤8.8 μA can objectively assess short-term survival with advanced cancer and reduce nonbeneficial medical treatment.

Accurate prognostication is important for patients and their families to prepare for the end of life. Objective Prognostic Score (OPS) is an easy-to-use tool that does not require the clinicians\' prediction of survival (CPS), whereas Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) needs CPS. Thus, inexperienced clinicians may hesitate to use PaP. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of OPS compared with PaP in inpatients in palliative care units (PCUs) in three East Asian countries.
This study was a secondary analysis of a cross-cultural, multicenter cohort study. We enrolled inpatients with far-advanced cancer in PCUs in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan from 2017 to 2018. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve to compare the accuracy of OPS and PaP.
A total of 1,628 inpatients in 33 PCUs in Japan and Korea were analyzed. OPS and PaP were calculated in 71.7% of the Japanese patients and 80.0% of the Korean patients. In Taiwan, PaP was calculated for 81.6% of the patients. The AUROC for 3-week survival was 0.74 for OPS in Japan, 0.68 for OPS in Korea, 0.80 for PaP in Japan, and 0.73 for PaP in Korea. The AUROC for 30-day survival was 0.70 for OPS in Japan, 0.71 for OPS in Korea, 0.79 for PaP in Japan, and 0.74 for PaP in Korea.
Both OPS and PaP showed good performance in Japan and Korea. Compared with PaP, OPS could be more useful for inexperienced physicians who hesitate to estimate CPS.

OBJECTIVE: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced cancer, prognosis is usually determined using clinicians\' predictions of survival (CPS). The palliative prognostic (PaP) score is a prognostic algorithm that was developed to predict survival in patients with advanced cancer. The score categorises patients into three risk groups in accordance with their probability of surviving for 30 days. The relative accuracy of PaP and CPS is unclear.
METHODS: This was a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Trials from inception up to June 2021. The inclusion criteria were studies in adults with advanced cancer reporting data on performance of both PaP and CPS. Data were extracted on accuracy of prognoses and where available on discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or C-index) and/or diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity).
RESULTS: Eleven studies were included. One study reported a direct comparison between PaP risk groups and equivalent risk groups defined by CPS and found that PaP was as accurate as CPS. Five studies reported discrimination of PaP as a continuous total score (rather than using the previously validated risk categories) and reported C-statistics that ranged from 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54, 0.74) up to 0.90 (95% CI 0.87, 0.92). Other studies compared PaP against CPS using non-equivalent metrics (e.g. comparing probability estimates against length of survival estimates).
CONCLUSIONS: PaP risk categories and CPS are equally able to discriminate between patients with different survival probabilities. Total PaP scores show good discrimination between patients in accordance with their length of survival. The role of PaP in clinical practice still needs to be defined.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO (CRD42021241074, 5th March 2021).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP score), Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score (D-PaP score), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) and modified Prognosis in Palliative Care Study predictor model (PiPS model).
METHODS: This multicentre prospective cohort study involved 58 palliative care services, including 19 hospital palliative care teams, 16 palliative care units and 23 home palliative care services, in Japan from September 2012 to April 2014. Analyses were performed involving four patient groups: those treated by palliative care teams, those in palliative care units, those at home and those receiving chemotherapy.
RESULTS: We recruited 2426 participants, and 2361 patients were finally analysed. Risk groups based on these instruments successfully identified patients with different survival profiles in all groups. The feasibility of PPI and modified PiPS-A was more than 90% in all groups, followed by PaP and D-PaP scores; modified PiPS-B had the lowest feasibility. The accuracy of prognostic scores was ⩾69% in all groups and the difference was within 13%, while c-statistics were significantly lower with the PPI than PaP and D-PaP scores.
CONCLUSIONS: The PaP score, D-PaP score, PPI and modified PiPS model provided distinct survival groups for patients in the three palliative care settings and those receiving chemotherapy. The PPI seems to be suitable for routine clinical use for situations where rough estimates of prognosis are sufficient and/or patients do not want invasive procedure. If clinicians can address more items, the modified PiPS-A would be a non-invasive alternative. In cases where blood samples are available or those requiring more accurate prediction, the PaP and D-PaP scores and modified PiPS-B would be more appropriate.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the palliative prognostic (PaP) score in patients with non-resectable advanced gastric cancer. The PaP score was calculated prior to each course of chemotherapy in 44 consecutive patients with non-resectable advanced gastric cancer between 2003 and 2010 at the Tottori University Hospital, Yonago, Japan. The prognosis was evaluated according to the PaP score and the different chemotherapeutic agents. The median survival time (MST) was 10 months. The PaP score classified the heterogeneous patient sample into three isoprognostic groups with regard to the possibility of a 1-month survival period, with 28 patients in group A (>70% chance), 12 in group B (30-70% chance) and 4 in group C (<30% chance). The MST of the three groups was 11, 3 and 1 months for group A, B and C, respectively. In group A, chemotherapeutic regimens did not affect patient survival, although the docetaxel regimen prolonged survival of patients in group B. In conclusion, the PaP score may be useful in selecting the best chemotherapeutic regimen in patients with non-resectable gastric cancer.