Predicting survival in terminal cancer patients: clinical observation or quality-of-life evaluation?

Author:

Toscani Franco,Brunelli Cinzia1,Miccinesi Guido2,Costantini Massimo3,Gallucci Michele4,Tamburini Marcello5,Paci Eugenio2,Di Giulio Paola6,Peruselli Carlo7

Affiliation:

1. Istituto di Ricerca in Medicina Palliativa ‘L. Maestroni’, Cremona

2. CSPO, Istituto Scientifico della Regione Toscana, Firenze

3. Servizio di Epidemiologia Clinica e Sperimentazioni Controllate, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Genova

4. Unitá di Cure Palliative e Terapia del Dolore, Desio

5. Servizio di Psicologia, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano

6. Dip. Sanitá Pubblicae Microbiogia, Facoltá di Medicina e Chirurgia, Universitaá degli Studi di Torino, Torino

7. Unitá Operativa di Cure Palliative, Ospedale di Biella

Abstract

Introduction: This study compares the relative prognostic power of clinical variables and quality-of-life (QoL) measures in a population of terminal cancer patients. Methods: A prospective cohort study in 58 Italian Palliative Care Units. Of the 601 randomly selected terminal cancer patients, 574 were followed until death in order to compare clinical and QoL variables (using the Therapy Impact Questionnaire (TIQ) as predictors of survival, and assess whether their combined implementation makes prediction more accurate. Results: The clinical variables most strongly associated with survival were dyspnoea, cachexia, Katz's ADL, oliguria, dysphagia, dehydration, liver and acute kidney failure and delirium (hazard ratios (HR) ranging from 2.10 to 3.01). Only the first four kept their strength once introduced in the Cox model (HRs ranging from 1.95 to 2.22). In the TIQ primary scale the strongest predictors were physical wellbeing, fatigue, functional status and cognitive status (HRs ranging from 1.42 to 1.71), but only fatigue showed an independent prognostic relevance (90% of selection). In the TIQ global scales, the Physical Symptom Index showed a stronger association with survival (HR 1.71) than the Therapy Impact Index (HR 1.47). The former marginally improved the prognostic power of the model when added to clinical variables. Internal validation confirmed that the results were not spurious. Conclusions: In terminal cancer patients, clinical variables are better predictors of survival than QoL. The large residual variability not accounted for by the model (: ≈ 70%) suggests that survival is also influenced by factors unlikely to be identified in a survey.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3