Predicting prognosis in patients with advanced cancer: A prospective study

Author:

Tavares Teresa1,Oliveira Margarida1,Gonçalves João2,Trocado Vera3,Perpétuo Jéssica1,Azevedo Alexandra2,Machado Firmino4,Barreto Vasco1,Rocha Céu1

Affiliation:

1. Unidade Local de Saúde de Matosinhos, Matosinhos, Portugal

2. Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Porto, Portugal

3. Unidade Local de Saúde do Alto Minho, Viana do Castelo, Portugal

4. Centro Hospitalar do Alto Ave, Guimarães, Portugal

Abstract

Background: Prognosis is one of the most challenging questions with which physicians are confronted. Accuracy in the prediction of survival is necessary for clinical, ethical, and organizational reasons. Aim: Evaluate young doctors’ clinical prediction of survival and the aids they could get: expert opinion, Palliative Prognostic score, and Palliative Prognostic Index. Design: Prospective, observational study. Setting/participants: Advanced cancer patients under observation of an inhospital palliative care team, from April to July 2014. A total of 38 patients were included, mostly male (65.8%), average age 68.5 years. Average survival time was 24 days. Follow-up concluded with death or after 90 days. Results: Young doctors’ clinical prediction of survival was adequate at 10.5%, with 55.3% severe errors in an optimistic direction. Palliative care experts were more adequate (23.7%) and made less severe errors (42.1%). Palliative Prognostic score and Palliative Prognostic Index were even more adequate (47% and 55%, respectively) and made even less severe errors (0% and 11%, respectively). The best correlation with observed survival was achieved when palliative care experts used palliative prognostic score ( rs = −0.629; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Young doctors’ clinical prediction of survival is often inadequate. Palliative Prognostic score, which includes clinical prediction of survival, calculated by palliative care experts had the best performance. Our results support the recommendation of using clinical prediction of survival together with prognostic scores.

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