Background: Predicting how long a patient with far advanced cancer has to live is a significant part of hospice and palliative care. Various prognostic models have been developed, but have not been fully compared in South Korea.
Objectives: We aimed to compare the accuracy of the Prognosis in Palliative Care Study (PiPS), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) and Objective Prognostic Score (OPS) for patients with far advanced cancer in a palliative care unit in South Korea.
Methods: This prospective study included patients with far advanced cancer who were admitted to a single palliative care unit at the National University Hospital. Variables for calculating the prognostic models were recorded by a palliative care physician. The survival rate was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of each model were calculated.
Results: A total of 160 patients participated. There was a significant difference in survival rates across all groups, each categorised through the five prognostic models. The overall accuracy (OA) of the prognostic models ranged between 54.5% and 77.6%. The OA of clinicians' predictions of survival ranged between 61.9% and 81.3%.
Conclusion: The PiPS, PPI, PaP and OPS were successfully validated in a palliative care unit of South Korea. There was no difference in accuracy between the prognostic models, and OA tended to be lower than in previous studies.
Keywords: clinical assessment; clinical decisions; communication; end of life care; hospice care; terminal care.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.