ANNEX PUBLISHERS

Journal of Palliative Medical Care & Research

Open Access
Research Article
Max Screen >>

The Development of the Prognostat Tool for Survival Prediction in Palliative Care Patients

Copyright: © 2018 Downing GM. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Related article at Pubmed, Google Scholar

Abstract

Background: Since a common question arises toward end of life about prognosis and that clinicians vary widely in the accuracy of their survival predictions, it is important that advancements be developed, one of which is to design or improve prognostic tools.

Purpose: To test the reliability of the new Prognostat tool for survival prediction in palliative care patients

Design: Prospective multi-site mixed methods study with data collection, survey and focus groups.

Setting: Prognostat form completed during first assessment by a palliative physician or nurse on admission to a palliative care unit or first ward or home consult.

Results: Four sites were involved with Prognostats completed on 422 patients by 24 palliative clinicians. Of these, the median age was 70 years, 83.2% cancer/16.8% non-cancer, and 29 were censored. Only 5 of 15 factors tested were significant in the multivariable model including clinician prediction of survival, Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2), primary illness, gender and delirium. Non-significant factors were illness trajectory, age, Charlson Index, tiredness, weight loss, loss of appetite, peripheral edema and skin breakdown. The final model with 5 variables had a Harrell's C of 0.78 demonstrating good predictive discrimination of the model. Focus groups liked the calculator table and nomogram graph in preference to KM-graphs, and the Prognostat was felt to be somewhat valuable, easy and non-invasive tool. Limitations include defining the term 'palliative,' chosen prognostic time intervals and small validation group.

Conclusion: The preliminary Prognostat is shown in this study of patients already registered or referred to palliative care to be a significant predictor of survival and may assist in clinical prognostication. Surprisingly, several factors such as Charlson comorbidities were not significant factors. For practical use, clinicians preferred the table and graph nomograms for quick estimation of survival. Further study is warranted to validate the tool.

Keywords: Palliative; Hospice; Prognostication; Survival prediction; Palliative Performance Scale

Introduction

Prognostication is a challenging yet important issue for those with progressive advanced and life-limiting illnesses. At some point, the patient or family may ask "Doc, how long do I have?" [1] and our response affects decisions about continuing or stopping treatments, timing of travel of family to visit, location of care and service needs to name a few. Several tools are currently in use which employ various parameters to estimate survival including the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) [2-8], Palliative Performance Index (PPI) and Prognosis in Palliative Care Study (PiPS) [9-12].

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2) has also been shown to be a significant predictor of survival for palliative care patients [4,9,11,13-18]. Yet, the clinician’s prediction of survival (CPS) is also important albeit with varying accuracy [19-21]. Many clinicians are able to categorize patients in terms of how sick they are or how long they have to live [22] with some discriminatory abilities but as Justice [22] notes they are not well calibrated [23,24]. To improve precision several laboratory marker indices have been incorporated into some prognostic tools such as low albumin [25], elevated lactate dehydrogenase [25], elevated white cell count combined with lymphocytopenia [26-28], levels of B12, CRP [24,29] and others.

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) is known to be a significant predictor of survival for palliative care patients [4,9,11,13-17,30,31]. Although PPS contains both functional assessment and other components of level of consciousness and intake, there are likely also other important factors. The Prognostat was developed to incorporate and test several additional factors reported in the literature.

The Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) is a commonly used tool in chronic disease that includes 19 co-morbidities which have been shown to have prognostic significance value in multiple studies [32-40]. To our knowledge CCI has not yet been incorporated into specific palliative prognostic tools and thus warrants testing. Also, the general trajectory of an illness is an important factor that clinicians use in daily assessment and has shown to have some predictive ability particularly if a sudden functional decline occurs [30]. The Australian 'illness phases' utilizes five aspects of an illness including pre-death categories of stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal and also bereavement [41,42]. Since palliative care patients face gradual, progressive or sudden decline with the emergence of symptoms leading to death, the inclusion of a trajectory variable into prognostic tools is important to study.

In general, the intent of such tools is not to predict the actual date of death but to involve a probabilistic approach where the 'likelihood' of survival is improved using grouped patient data and prediction graphs and tables. However, Stiel notes that scoring systems on prognosis of survival time seem to be least useful for those patients with neither a good nor a poor prognosis where in those situations both physicians’ estimates as well as the existing prognostic instruments lack precision [43]. In other words, clinicians seem to predict quite well if the patient is very close to death or if they are very stable and doing well; it is the ‘in-between’ that remains challenging. Much attention has recently focused on the ‘surprise question’ stated as "Would you be surprised if your patient died within the next 6 or 12 months?". This appeared somewhat useful in cancer [44], renal [45,46] and ICU [47] patients.

The Prognostat is a new tool combining several factors and designed to be easy, quick and non-invasive. The primary research question is whether the Prognostat is a significant predictor of survival and secondly, do new variables such as CCI and illness trajectory add significant value to survival prediction in palliative patients?

Methodology
Prognostat Test Model

The Prognostat exploratory model combined PPS with clinician prediction of survival(CPS) [4,20,48-50], nineteen co-morbidity factors incorporated into the weighted Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) [35,37,40,51,52], seven symptoms [53-55] and four Australian illness ‘phases’ [42,56,57]. These variables are defined in Table 1 and were selected by an interdisciplinary palliative expert group of 12 physicians and nurses. Further Delphi-type feedback was gained from two workshops [58] where it was also recommended that prognostic tools be quick, easy to use and preferably non-invasive, so laboratory markers were excluded as being minimally invasive. The CPS was categorized into clinically relevant time blocks. The outputs to be explored in the Prognostat included a life expectancy table calculator, nomogram and Kaplan-Meier graphs similar to our prior work [59].

Data Analysis

The palliative patient was defined as either being the first admission to a palliative care unit or hospice, or received a palliative consultation at home or hospital. A Prognostat collection form (Supplementary XX) was used by palliative physicians and nurses to obtain data from patients including their survival predictions at the time of first admission or consult. Data was entered into Microsoft (MS) Access, anonymized and extracted for analysis.

Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank statistics were computed. The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to the survival outcomes incorporating the Prognostat component variables together with the demographic variables, age, gender, location and disease. The statistical significance of Prognostat components for predicting survival were assessed using Wald tests for the corresponding (log)-hazard ratios. A backwards elimination process was used to formulate a final survival prediction model. Survival nomograms were generated using Harrell’s Design library for R [60] which incorporates Cox model analyses to compute weights that are applied to the Prognostat components to determine an overall Prognostat Score. Computations were performed using R2.12.1 and SPSS V17.

Sample size was calculated using Harrell's [60] recommendations of ten events (deaths here) per model parameter. We thus required over 300 deaths to accurately estimate the initial variables with parameters including PPS 9, CPS 5, illness trajectory 4, seven symptoms, CCI 4, age, gender, primary illness and location. Once the total number of cases was met (8 months), recruitment was stopped and four additional months were allowed to follow survival on the remaining cases.

The study participants were also sent a short satisfaction survey which was used along with three focus groups to assess utility of the Prognostat. This qualitative data was thematically analyzed and used along with three separate focus group sessions. Invitations for these focus groups included all study participants in the three city locations. The questions and results c89an be seen in the Supplementary data regarding clinical relevance and utility.

Ethics

Ethics approval was received by the Health Research Boards of the University’s of Victoria (#J2009-38) and Alberta (#Pro00007680), with some funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Partnership in Health System Improvement (PHSI) grant on Timely Access to End-of-Life Care (PHSI#33928-54150) and the Victoria Foundation’s Myre & Winnifred Sim fund.

Results

Four locations participated: two with Palliative Care Units (PCU) only (Nanaimo, Saanich) and two with combined PCU, home and ward consult services (Victoria, Edmonton) but one PCU withdrew after a few cases. There were 25 physician and 20 nurse participants. There were 518 prognostats completed in 422 patients but in those additional situations, assessments were performed by both physician and nurse independently and a few patients had repeat assessments at a later time point or different location of care. The analysis was conducted on only the 422 patient first assessments. Demographic characteristics are shown in Table 2. The average age was 70 years, with the primary disease of cancer 83.6%, non-cancer 16.4%. The time from first Prognostat completion until death (or censoring) averaged 38 days (median 10 days). There were 29 Prognostats censored at study closure.

Table 3 shows the frequencies and percentages for the clinical variables used in the study. In the interest of parsimony, we aggregated levels of PPS into clinically relevant groups: PPS 10-20%, PPS 30-40%, PPS 50% and PPS 60% or higher. CPS categories were collapsed at each end from focus group discussion. A backwards elimination process was used to formulate a survival prediction model. Factors found not to be significant in the multivariable Cox model include: illness trajectory, location of care, dyspnea on exertion, age, Charlson Index, persistent tiredness, weight loss, skin pressure sore, loss of appetite and peripheral edema. Statistically strong factors include CPS, PPS, gender, primary illness and, delirium. P-values for these variables included in the survival prediction model are listed in Table 4. Harrel's C-stat is 0.78 which shows good predictive discrimination of the model.

The final Prognostat nomogram in table calculator format is given in Table 5. Each variable has a weighted value and these are summed to create a total points score. By then locating that score on the percentile table, the likelihood of dying is shown by 10th, 25th, median, 75th and 90th percentile predictions.

Prognostat predictions were considered accurate if the observed survival time fell between the estimated 25th and 75th percentiles. The CPS was considered accurate if actual survival time fell within the CPS interval in the Prognostat that the clinician indicated. From this, 42% of CPS values were accurate compared to 69% accuracy using the Prognostat. The final Prognostat model was validated using external prospective data. There were 63 patients in the validation set for whom descriptive statistics are provided in Table 2 and 3. Since the validation model only collected 'points', we could not distinguish colorectal from lung cancer in Table 2. For the validation set, 69% of CPS values were accurate compared to 84% accuracy using the Prognostat.

A survey and three focus groups were held totalling 15 palliative physicians and 11 palliative nurses to discuss preliminary results, and from which several themes emerged. The tool was felt to be "somewhat or very" easy (79%), quick (83%), "somewhat or very" useful (78%) and practical (62%). Overall, the Prognostat was felt to be a valuable tool which enhances a clinician's prediction of survival. The nomogram and the calculator table were the preferred methods to use the tool, and KM-graphs least preferred. Specific information on the survey and nomgram graph is found in Supplementary data.

Discussion

The Prognostat improved standalone reports of survival prediction for both clinician prediction (CPS) and PPS scores [31,50,53]. Primary illness, gender and delirium added further significance while surprisingly; the Charlson Index [33] was not significant in our model. Although other studies in cancer and non-cancer have shown the CCI to be a significant factor, an external palliative physician not involved in this study (personal communication) suggested that in far advanced illness these factors are ‘washed out’ by more significant changes in functional status and clinician prediction. Further study is warranted to clarify this.

The cancer categories were selected using the four with the highest mortality in Canada. The 'other' cancers accounted for more cases but varied highly so they were grouped for statistical purposes. Although the 71 non-cancer cases were only 16.8% of the total, that is similar to the number of lung cancer patients. Further, on the nomogram, 'non-cancer' is significant and lies between cancer of the prostrate and other-cancers. This suggests that non-cancer illnesses can be fitted into prognostic tools and that such patients do not always live longer than cancer patients. A larger sample size is needed to test significance for non-cancer illnesses as well as delineate among other primary cancers (eg. Harris et al) [61].

Neither the Charlson CCI nor Australian trajectory phases were significant in the 422 cases. Interestingly however, we initially analysed the 518 cases which included some 'repeat' cases and both parameters were significant. The repeat cases were removed from the final analysis to preserve statistical accuracy of ‘first’ assessment predictions. Further studies using prospective serial assessments are imperative. An earlier model of the Prognostat was less predictive but did not include CPS [62].

An ongoing issue in this field is to adequately define what constitutes the term 'palliative patient.' We based this on direct involvement with "palliative experts" either by referral for consultation or admission to a palliative care unit or hospice. Such referrals usually occur in advanced illness which fits the shorter lengths of stay and survival seen in many palliative prognostic tools [6-11,63-65]. However more recent evolution in this field frequently uses a ‘palliative approach’ which implies a much broader interpretation of the term palliative, makes identification and prognostication more challenging. The 'surprise question' is often utilized about the 'risk' of dying but appears limited on its own as a survival prediction tool [66-70].

Clinician prediction of survival (CPS) remains a valuable aspect in prognostication being the most significant of all variables in this study. Accuracy was substantively improved by 15%-27% in the two datasets using the Prognostat with an overall accuracy of 69-84%. Additionally it provides quantiles of risk which may be clinically informative. Also, the percentile scores were highly appreciated in showing a clinically practical range of survival predictions including both 10% and 90% blocks.

Limitations of study

Since the final Prognostat model was reduced from 15 variables to 5, there is need for a larger prospective validation study. Although definitions were provided, the focus groups noted some ambiguity with several symptoms such as tiredness, weight loss and dyspnea.

The prognostic time intervals were also at question. Some focus group participants suggested using simple groupings of days, weeks or months but there was no agreement. The issue is similar to variations seen in other tools such as PaP [6,7] and PiPS [12]. As with most palliative care studies in advanced stage illness, patients had a shorter overall prognosis; we had insufficient cases in those living six months or more category and thus were collapsed into >4 months category. A larger study is needed to gain significant longer-term survivors.

Although our overall Kaplan-Meier mean and median survival times are short at 44 and 12 days respectively, these are similar to several other palliative prognostic tools. For example, the PaP tool is based on 30-day survival [7] and PiPS categories’ median survivals are 5, 33 and 92 days [12]. Therefore the findings may not apply to early stage illness where patients are not admitted to palliative programs or not referred for palliative consultation.

Finally, the patients were already deemed palliative, generally with far advanced illness and either seen in consultation by palliative physicians or admitted to a palliative care unit. Therefore, the findings may or may not apply to patients who are only "at risk of dying," "not palliative" or not seen by palliative expert clinicians.

Conclusion

The Prognostat appears to be a significant predictor of survival for patients already deemed palliative but requires further validation. The study adds support for probabilistic tools using a calculator nomogram with a range of survival percentiles within the individual patient parameters. At least for now the Charlson comorbidities, Australian phases, tiredness, appetite and weight loss are not shown to be the predictors of survival but need to be tested in a larger prospective validation study.

The nomogram table calculator is preferred by most clinicians over KM-graphs. The Prognostat is a simple, non-invasive tool that can assist clinicians in prognostication for palliative patients. Future study should include serial calculations for trajectory analysis and repeat of the Australian phases may demonstrate value in larger cohorts and comparison among professionals. Branco study.

Declaration

The authors declare there are no competing financial interests.

Acknowledgements

In addition to the study authors, we express our appreciation to the collaborator physicians and nurses for their time, expertise and support including Physicians: Pablo Amigo, Peter Battershill, David Blair, Debra Braithwaite, Brian Calvin, J. Faily, Manny Fritsch, Susan Germain, Lloyd Hildebrand, James Houston, Brad Hunter, Naseem Janmohamed, Christine Jones, Ryan Liebscher, Robin Love, Doreen Oneschuk, Gail Sager, Maurice Saunders, Ellen Skinnarland, Geoff Spry, Jack Sturmwind and Jim Wilde; and Nurses: Susan Becker, Angela Bruce, Christine Cosack, Catherine Coulter, Caite Meagher, Jill DeGoey, Theresa Downing, Judy Dupuis, Susan Geyssen, Rob Hayward, Carol Johnson, Phin Leow, Ellen MacLeod, Tracy McConnell, Kath Murray, Phung Pam, Lorraine Pardy, Carol Pare, Violet Ramey and Wendy Simmons. Special thanks to Analyst Ju Yang and also to the following Programs: Victoria Hospice Palliative Care Unit and Palliative Response Team, Nanaimo Regional Hospital Palliative Care Unit, Saanich Peninsula Hospital Palliative Care Unit and the Edmonton Zone Palliative Care Program.

1Loprinzi C, Johnson M, Steer G (2000) The art of oncology: when the tumor is not the target. Doc, how much time do I have? J Clin Oncol 18: 699-71.
2Glare P (2005) Clinical predictors of survival in advanced cancer. J Supp Oncol 3: 331-9.
3 Glare P, Eychmueller S, Virik K (2003) The use of the palliative prognostic score in patients with diagnoses other than cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 26: 883-5.
4 Glare P, Sinclair C, Downing M, Stone P, Maltoni M, et al. (2008) Predicting survival in patients with advanced disease. Eur J Cancer 44: 1146-56.
5 Glare PA, Eychmueller S, McMahon P (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of the palliative prognostic score in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 22: 4823-8.
6 Maltoni M, Nanni O, Pirovano M, Scarpi E, Indelli M, Martini C, et al. (1999) Successful validation of the palliative prognostic score in terminally ill cancer patients. Italian Multicenter Study Group on Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manage 17: 240-7.
7Pirovano M, Maltoni M, Nanni O, Marinari M, Indelli M, et al. (1999) A new palliative prognostic score: a first step for the staging of terminally ill cancer patients. Italian Multicenter and Study Group on Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manage 17: 231-9.
8 Wilner LS, Arnold RM (2006) The palliative Prognostic Score #62. J Palliat Med 9: 993.
9 Lau F, Cloutier-Fisher D, Kuziemsky C, Black F, Downing M, et al. (2007) A systematic review of prognostic tools for estimating survival time in palliative care. J Palliat Care 23: 93-112.
10 Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S (1999) The Palliative Prognostic Index: a scoring system for survival prediction of terminally ill cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer 7: 128-33.
11 Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S (1999) Validity of the palliative performance scale from a survival perspective. J Pain Symptom Manage 18: 2-3.
12 Gwilliam B, Keeley V, Todd C, Gittins M, Roberts C, et al. (2011) Development of prognosis in palliative care study (PiPS) predictor models to improve prognostication in advanced cancer: prospective cohort study. BMJ 343: d4920.
13 Anderson F, Downing GM, Hill J, Casorso L, Lerch N (1996) Palliative performance scale (PPS): a new tool. J Palliat Care 12: 5-11.
14 Downing M, Lau F, Lesperance M, Karlson N, Shaw J, et al. (2007) Meta-analysis of survival prediction with Palliative Performance Scale. J Palliat Care 23: 245-52.
15 Harrold J, Rickerson E, Carroll JT, McGrath J, Morales K, et al. (2005) Is the palliative performance scale a useful predictor of mortality in a heterogeneous hospice population? J Pallia Med 8: 503-9.
16 Head B, Ritchie CS, Smoot TM (2005) Prognostication in hospice care: can the palliative performance scale help? J Palliat Med 8: 492-502.
17 Lau F, Downing GM, Lesperance M, Shaw J, Kuziemsky C (2006) Use of Palliative Performance Scale in end-of-life prognostication. J Palliat Med 9: 1066-75.
18 Lau F, Karlson N, Downing GM, Lesperance M, Ho F (2007) 13-Year survival trajectory analysis of the Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2) in prognostication for palliative care patients (in preparation).
19 Vigano A, Dorgan M, Bruera E, Suarez-Almazor ME (1999)The relative accuracy of the clinical estimation of the duration of life for patients with end of life cancer. Cancer 86: 170-6.
20 Christakis NA, Lamont EB (2000) Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed) 320: 469-72.
21 Glare P, Virik K, Jones M, Hudson M, Eychmuller S, Simes J, et al. (2003) A systematic review of physicians' survival predictions in terminally ill cancer patients. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed) 327: 195-8.
22 Lamont E (2008) Forseeing: Formulating an accurate prognosis. In: Glare P, Christakis N, editors. Prognosis in Advanced Cancer. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. New York 29.
23 Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA (1999) Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Annals of Internal Medicine 130: 515-24.
24 Forrest LM, McMillan DC, McArdle CS, Angerson WJ, Dunlop DJ (2003)Evaluation of cumulative prognostic scores based on the systemic inflammatory response in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. British J Can 89: 1028-30.
25 Barbot AC, Mussault P, Ingrand P, Tourani JM (2008)Assessing 2-month clinical prognosis in hospitalized patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 26: 2538-43.
26 Vigano A, Bruera E, Jhangri GS, Newman SC, Fields AL, et al. (2000) Clinical survival predictors in patients with advanced cancer. Archives of Internal Medicine 160: 861-8.
27 Kikuchi N, Ohmori K, Kuriyama S, Shimada A, Nakaho T, et al. (2007) Survival prediction of patients with advanced cancer: the predictive accuracy of the model based on biological markers. J Pain Symptom Manage 34: 600-6.
28 Maltoni M, Pirovano M, Nanni O, Marinari M, Indelli M, et al. (1997) Biological indices predictive of survival in 519 Italian terminally ill cancer patients. Italian Multicenter Study Group on Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manage 13: 1-9.
29 Kelly L, White S, Stone PC (2007) The B12/CRP index as a simple prognostic indicator in patients with advanced cancer: a confirmatory study. Ann Oncol 18: 1395-9.
30 Downing GM, Lesperance M, Lau F, Yang J (2010) Survival implications of sudden functional decline as a sentinel event using the palliative performance scale. J Palliat Med 13: 549-57.
31 Lau F, Downing M, Lesperance M, Karlson N, Kuziemsky C, et al. (2009) Using the Palliative Performance Scale to provide meaningful survival estimates. J Pain Symptom Manage 38: 134-44.
32Asmis TR, Ding K, Seymour L, Shepherd FA, Leighl NB, et al. (2008) Age and comorbidity as independent prognostic factors in the treatment of non small-cell lung cancer: a review of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group trials. J Clin Oncol 26: 54-9.
33 Charlson ME, Charlson RE, Peterson JC, Marinopoulos SS, Briggs WM, et al. (2008) The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. J Clini Epidemiol 61: 1234-40.
34 Covinsky KE, Justice AC, Rosenthal GE, Palmer RM, Landefeld CS (1997) Measuring prognosis and case mix in hospitalized elders. The importance of functional status. J Gen Int Med 12: 203-8.
35 Extermann M (2000) Measuring comorbidity in older cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 36: 453-71.
36 Lubke T, Monig SP, Schneider PM, Holscher AH, Bollschweiler E (2003) (2003) Does Charlson-comorbidity index correlate with short-term outcome in patients with gastric cancer? Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie 128: 970-6.
37Needham DM, Scales DC, Laupacis A, Pronovost PJ (2005) A systematic review of the Charlson comorbidity index using Canadian administrative databases: a perspective on risk adjustment in critical care research. J Crit Care 20: 12-9.
38 Nunez JE, Nunez E, Facila L, Bertomeu V, Llacer A, et al. (2004) Prognostic value of Charlson comorbidity index at 30 days and 1 year after acute myocardial infarction. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia 57: 842-9.
39 Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, Muggivan A, Quan H, et al. (2004) New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clini Epidemiol 57: 1288-94.
40 West DW, Satariano WA, Ragland DR, Hiatt RA (1996) Comorbidity and breast cancer survival: a comparison between black and white women. Ann Epidemiol 6: 413-9.
41 Rawlings D, Hendry K, Mylne S, Banfield M, Yates P (2011) Using palliative care assessment tools to influence and enhance clinical practice. Home Healthcare Nurse 29: 139-45.
42 GCurrow DC, Eagar K, Aoun S, Fildes D, Yates P, et al. (2008) Is It Feasible and Desirable to Collect Voluntarily Quality and Outcome Data Nationally in Palliative Oncology Care? J Clin Oncol 26: 3853-9.
43 Stiel S, Bertram L, Neuhaus S, Nauck F, Ostgathe C, et al. (2010) Evaluation and comparison of two prognostic scores and the physicians’ estimate of survival in terminally ill patients. Support Care Cancer 18: 43-9.
44 Moroni M, Zocchi D, Bolognesi D, Abernethy A, Rondelli R, et al. (2014) The 'surprise' question in advanced cancer patients: A prospective study among general practitioners. Palliat Med 28: 959-64.
45 Da Silva Gane M, Braun A, Stott D, Wellsted D, Farrington K (2013) How robust is the 'surprise question' in predicting short-term mortality risk in haemodialysis patients? Nephron Clin Pract 123: 185-93.
46 Moss AH, Ganjoo J, Sharma S, Gansor J, Senft S, et al. (2008) Utility of the "surprise" question to identify dialysis patients with high mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 1379-84.
47 Hadique S, Culp S, Sangani RG, Chapman KD, Khan S, et al. (2017) Derivation and Validation of a Prognostic Model to Predict 6-Month Mortality in an Intensive Care Unit Population. Ann Am Thoracic Society 14: 1556-61.
48 Hui D, Kilgore K, Nguyen L, Hall S, Fajardo J, et al. (2011) The accuracy of probabilistic versus temporal clinician prediction of survival for patients with advanced cancer: a preliminary report. Oncologist 16: 1642-8.
49 Christakis NA (1998)Predicting patient survival before and after hospice enrollment. The Hospice J 13: 71-87.
50 Glare P, Virik K, Jones M, Hudson M, Eychmuller S, et al. (2003) A systematic review of physicians' survival predictions in terminally ill cancer patients. BMJ 327: 195-8.
51 Asmis TR, Ding K, Seymour L, Shepherd FA, Leighl NB, et al. (2008) Age and comorbidity as independent prognostic factors in the treatment of non small-cell lung cancer: a review of National Cancer Instituteof Canada Clinical Trials Group trials. J Clini Oncol 26: 54-9.
52 Covinsky KE, Justice AC, Rosenthal GE, Palmer RM, Landefeld CS (1997) Measuring prognosis and case mix in hospitalized elders. The importance of functional status. J Gen Int Med 12: 203-8.
53 Vigano A, Dorgan M, Buckingham J, Bruera E, Suarez-Almazor ME (2000) Survival prediction in terminal cancer patients: a systematic review of the medical literature. Palliative Medicine 14: 363-74.
54 Salpeter SR, Luo EJ, Malter DS, Stuart B (2012)Systematic review of noncancer presentations with a median survival of 6 months or less. Am J Med 125: 512 e1-6.
55 Salpeter SR, Malter DS, Luo EJ, Lin AY, Stuart B (2012) Systematic review of cancer presentations with a median survival of six months or less. J Palliat Med 15: 175-85.
56 Rawlings D, Hendry K, Mylne S, Banfield M, Yates P (2011) Using palliative care assessment tools to influence and enhance clinical practice. Home Healthc Nurse 29: 139-45.
57 Kristjanson L (2008) Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative (PCOC) Wollongong NSW, Australia: University of Wollongong.
58 Lau F, Downing G (2009) Timely access to end-of-life care planning workshops. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Partnerships for Health System Improvement (PHSI). Victoria and Edmonton, Canada 2008.
59 Lau F, Downing GM, Lesperance M, Karlson N, Kuziemsky C, et al. (2009) Using the Palliative Performance Scale to provide meaningful survival estimates. J Pain Symptom Manage 38: 134-44.
60 Harrell F (2001) Regression Modeling Strategies: Springer-Verlag.
61 Harris P, Wong E, Farrington S, Craig TR, Harrold JK, et al. (2013) Patterns of functional decline in hospice: what can individuals and their families expect? J Am Geriatr Soc 61: 413-7.
62 Miladinovic B, Mhaskar R, Kumar A, Kim S, Schonwetter R, et al. (2013) External validation of a web-based prognostic tool for predicting survival for patients in hospice care. J Palliat Care 29: 140-6.
63 Chiang JK, Lai NS, Wang MH, Chen SC, Kao YH (2009) A proposed prognostic 7-day survival formula for patients with terminal cancer. BMC Public Health 9: 365.
64 Ohde S, Hayashi A, Takahasi O, Yamakawa S, Nakamura M, et al. (2011) A 2-week prognostic prediction model for terminal cancer patients in a palliative care unit at a Japanese general hospital. Palliat Med 25: 170-6.
65 Miura T, Matsumoto Y, Hama T, Amano K, Tei Y, et al. (2015) Glasgow prognostic score predicts prognosis for cancer patients in palliative settings: a subanalysis of the Japan-prognostic assessment tools validation (J-ProVal) study. Support Care Cancer 23: 3149-56.
66 White N, Kupeli N, Vickerstaff V, Stone P (2017)How accurate is the 'Surprise Question' at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medicine 15: 139.
67 Malhotra R, Tao X, Wang Y, Chen Y, Apruzzese RH, et al. (2017)Performance of the Surprise Question Compared to Prediction Models in Hemodialysis Patients: A Prospective Study. Am J Nephrol 46: 390-6.
68 Forzley B, Er L, Chiu HH, Djurdjev O, Martinusen D, et al. (2017) External validation and clinical utility of a prediction model for 6-month mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease. 32: 395-403.
69 Hamano J, Morita T, Inoue S, Ikenaga M, Matsumoto Y, et al. (2015) Surprise Questions for Survival Prediction in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study. Oncologist 20: 839-44.
70 Downar J, Goldman R, Pinto R, Englesakis M, Adhikari NK (2017) The "surprise question" for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 189: E484-93.

Journal of AIDS and HIV Infections

Tables at a glance
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5

Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2)

PPS is a functional status and survival prediction tool. Use instructions for PPSv2 for eleven categories from PPS 100% to PPS0% in 10-percent increments [13].

 

 

Australia Illness Trajectory or Phase

Stable: All patients not classified as unstable, deteriorating, or terminal. Symptoms are adequately controlled by established management. Further interventions to maintain symptom control and quality of life have been planned. Functional status remains same or may improve.

Unstable: the development of a new unexpected problem or a rapid increase in the severity of existing problems, either of which require an urgent change in manage- ment or treatment

Deteriorating: a gradual worsening of existing symptoms, functional status or the development of new but expected problems. These require the application of specific plans of care and regular review but not urgent or emergency treatment

Terminal: death is likely in a matter of days and no acute intervention is planned or required (PPS 10%-20%)

 

Clinician Prediction of Survival

Taking into account the patient’s history, the present stage of illness, potential for treatment response, physical assessment and overall clinical experience, the clinician makes an overall judgment of the likelihood of dying within one of the 6 time periods listed. Depending on individual circumstances, the time period may be up to 24 hours if investigations were ordered and deemed important in judging options for treatment and need to revise clinical prediction of survival. The following categories are to be used: <3days, 4-7 days, 1-4 weeks, 1-3 months, 4-6 months and >6 months

Charlson Co-Morbid- ity Factors [examples only of 19 factors]

  1. Renal – moderate Stage 3 (GFR 30-60ml) or Stage 4 (GFR 15-30) to severe Stage 5 (GFR < 15 ml/min – renal failure - dialysis)
  2. Liver – moderate to severe implies degrees of cirrhosis, encephalopathy, portal hypertension, etc along with abnormal albumin, INR, bilirubin, ammonia, etc

 

Delirium

An acute brain syndrome or confusional state as defined by the ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines. The recent onset of change in mental status may be due to several factors eg. sepsis, electrolyte imbalance, renal failure or drug toxicity. It may be mild to severe, hypo- or hyper-active in type.

 

Dyspnea on exertion

This is difficulty breathing on exertion (moderate or severe on a verbal scale or ≥4/10 on a ESAS) expressed by the patient or observed when the patient attempts to increase physical activity. This would include either activity such as walking, standing or a bed- bound patient who tries to change position or even tries to talk. The patient may or may not be receiving oxygen and may or may not be dyspneic at rest

Weight loss

Approximately 5% or more loss of weight compared to the previous three months or so.

 

Peripheral Edema

Primarily meant as dependent edema, especially in the feet, legs or pelvis. Various causes include hypoalbuminemia, congestive heart failure, cirrhosis or renal failure. It does not include unilateral edema due to lymphatic blockage or upper extremity edema in the absence of lower leg edema.

 

Skin Pressure Ulcer

This is skin breakdown due to pressure &/or sheering. The location may be sacral decubitus or heel, elbow, scapula or other. It includes any of the 4 stages of skin ulcers but does not include fistula or peri-ostomy skin breakdown

Persistent Tiredness

Persistent tiredness (rated at moderate to severe verbal or ≥4/10 on a numerical or ESAS scale), and in general present for past weeks to few months

 

Loss of Appetite

This means a significant decrease in appetite (moderate to severe verbal or ≥4/10 on a numerical or ESAS scale) over recent weeks. It may or may not include cachexia and may or may not result in actual reduced intake or weight loss

Table 1: Definitions for Prognostat Variables in the Test Model

 

Variable

 

Value

Prognostat Test Set

Validation Set

Count

%

Count

%

 

Gender

Male

223

53.1%

29

46.0%

Female

197

46.9%

34

54.0%

Not recorded

2

0.3%

0

-

 

 

Age

< 45 yrs

14

3.3%

1

1.6%

45-64 yrs

142

33.6%

7

11.1%

65-74 yrs

95

22.5%

4

6.3%

75-84 yrs

96

22.7%

9

14.3%

85+ yrs

67

15.9%

7

11.1%

Not recorded

8

1.9%

35

55.6%

Mean age

69.5

-

74.0

-

Median age

71.0

-

75.5

-

 

 

Primary Illness

Non-cancer

71

16.8%

11

17.5%

Ca Lung

73

17.3%

21

33.3%

Ca Colorectal

38

9.0%

 

 

Ca Breast

30

7.1%

7

11.1%

Ca Prostate

29

6.9%

2

3.2%

Ca Other

174

41.2%

22

34.9%

Not recorded

7

1.7%

0

-

 

 

Location
at 1st Assessment

Alive

25

5.9%

1

1.6%

Died

397

94.1%

62

98.4%

Pall Care Unit

162

38.4%

26

41.3%

Home

155

36.7%

1

1.6%

Ward/ER

82

19.4%

36

57.1%

Residential Hospice

23

5.5%

0

-

 

Location of Death

Pall Care Unit

226

53.6%

-

-

Home

86

20.4%

-

-

Ward/ER

43

10.2%

-

-

Residential Hospice

33

7.8%

-

-

Missing data

34

8.1%

-

-

 

Site

Victoria

241

57.1%

-

-

Edmonton & Nanaimo

181

42.9%

-

-

Table 2: Demographics of test and validation samples

 

Variable

 

Value

Prognostat

Validation Set

Count

%

Count

%

 

Clinician Prediction of Survival (CPS)

≤ 7 days

121

28.7%

11

17.5%

1-4 weeks

111

26.3%

21

33.3%

1-3 months

136

32.2%

24

38.1%

≥ 4 months

52

12.3%

7

11.1%

Not recorded

2

0.5%

0

-

 

Palliative Performance Scale (PPS)

PPS 70%

16

3.8%

4

6.3%

PPS 60%

38

9.0%

 

 

PPS 50%

65

15.4%

13

20.6%

PPS 40%

113

26.8%

37

58.7%

PPS 30%

89

21.1%

 

 

PPS 20%

40

9.5%

9

14.3%

PPS 10%

61

14.5%

 

 

 

Illness Trajectory

Stable

51

12.1%

1

1.6%

Unstable

98

23.2%

8

12.7%

Deteriorating

182

43.1%

44

69.8%

Terminal

89

21.1%

10

15.9%

Not recorded

2

0.5%

0

-

Primary Illness

[see table 2]

Location of Care

[see table 2]

Gender

[see table 2]

Age

[see table 2]

Delirium

No

307

72.8%

44

69.8%

Yes

115

27.3%

19

30.2%

Dyspnea on exertion

No

206

48.8%

40

63.5%

Yes

216

51.2%

23

36.5%

 

Charlson Co-Morbidities

0

51

12.1%

-

-

1-4

136

32.2%

-

-

5-9

208

49.3%

-

-

10-15

27

6.4%

-

-

 

Weight loss

No

160

37.9%

-

-

Yes

262

62.1%

-

-

 

Loss of appetite

No

110

26.1%

-

-

Yes

312

73.9%

-

-

 

Peripheral Edema

No

266

63.0%

-

-

Yes

156

37.0%

-

-

 

Skin Pressure Sore

No

366

86.7%

-

-

Yes

56

13.3%

-

-

Persistent Tiredness

No

103

24.4%

-

-

Yes

319

75.6%

-

-

Table 3: Model with 15 Variables Included in the Exploratory Prognostat Model

Factor

P value

Clinician Prediction of Survival (CPS)

<.0001

Palliative Performance Scale (PPS)

0.0008

Primary Illness

0.0265

Gender

0.011

Delirium

0.0299

Table 4: Wald Statistics for Model Variables in Final Prognostat

Category Point Scores for Prognostat

 

Total Points Ranges

Prognostat Survival Table
# Days Likelihood until Death by Percentiles

Category

Factor

Points

10th

25th

Median

75th

90th

 

Clinician Predic- tion of Survival (CPS)

≥4mos

0 points

<10

>10

>45

>150

-

-

1-3mos

22 points

10’s

10

45

150

-

-

1-4wks

42 points

20’s

8

35

120

-

-

≤7days

100 points

30’s

7

30

90

>210

-

 

Palliative Performance Scale (PPS)

PPS ≥60%

0 points

40’s

6

20

60

210

-

PPS 50%

20 points

50’s

5

15

60

120

-

PPS 30-40%

35 points

60’s

4

10

45

120

>210

PPS 10-20%

53 points

70’s

3

9

30

90

210

 

Primary Illness

Ca Breast

0 points

80’s

3

7

30

60

120

Ca Prostate

5 point

90’s

3

6

20

45

90

Non-Cancer

9 points

100’s

2

5

15

30

90

Ca Other

22 points

110’s

2

4

10

30

60

Ca Colorectal

32 points

120’s

2

3

8

20

45

Ca Lung

32 points

130’s

2

3

7

15

30

 

Gender

Female

0 points

140’s

2

3

5

15

30

Male

16 points

150’s

1

2

4

10

20

 

Delirium

No

0 points

160’s

1

2

4

8

15

Yes

14 points

170’s

1

2

3

6

10

 

Using the categories and definitions of terms:

  1. Obtain a Category Point Score for each and then sum these to obtain a Total Points Score
  2. Locate the Total Points Score (to the closet 10-point value) and view the Survival Percentiles

180’s

1

2

3

5

9

190’s

1

1

3

4

7

200’s

0

 

2

3

6

210’s

-

 

-

-

5

Prognostat© 2013. M. Downing, Victoria Hospice Society, 1952 Bay St, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8R 1J8

Table 5: Prognostat Calculator Table

Partnered Content Networks

  • Cancer Science
  • Vaccine Studies
  • Gynecology
  • Food Nutrition
  • Nursing Science
  • Public Health
  • The Pharma
  • Infectious Disease
  • Neuro Care
  • Catalysis
  • Neonatal Biology
  • Neonatal Disorders
  • Mutation
  • Nanotechnology
  • Toxicology
  • Dark Biotechnology
  • Pollution Toxicology
  • Cell Biology
  • Bioanalytical Research
  • Renal Disorders
  • The Astrophysics
  • Sleep Physiology
  • Epidemiology
  • Histology