Suppr超能文献

在姑息治疗中,预后工具或临床预测,哪个更好?

Prognostic tools or clinical predictions: Which are better in palliative care?

机构信息

Division of Psychiatry, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.

Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 28;16(4):e0249763. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249763. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The Palliative Prognostic (PaP) score; Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI); Feliu Prognostic Nomogram (FPN) and Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) have all been proposed as prognostic tools for palliative cancer care. However, clinical judgement remains the principal way by which palliative care professionals determine prognoses and it is important that the performance of prognostic tools is compared against clinical predictions of survival (CPS).

METHODS

This was a multi-centre, cohort validation study of prognostic tools. Study participants were adults with advanced cancer receiving palliative care, with or without capacity to consent. Key prognostic data were collected at baseline, shortly after referral to palliative care services. CPS were obtained independently from a doctor and a nurse.

RESULTS

Prognostic data were collected on 1833 participants. All prognostic tools showed acceptable discrimination and calibration, but none showed superiority to CPS. Both PaP and CPS were equally able to accurately categorise patients according to their risk of dying within 30 days. There was no difference in performance between CPS and FPN at stratifying patients according to their risk of dying at 15, 30 or 60 days. PPI was significantly (p<0.001) worse than CPS at predicting which patients would survive for 3 or 6 weeks. PPS and CPS were both able to discriminate palliative care patients into multiple iso-prognostic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although four commonly used prognostic algorithms for palliative care generally showed good discrimination and calibration, none of them demonstrated superiority to CPS. Prognostic tools which are less accurate than CPS are of no clinical use. However, prognostic tools which perform similarly to CPS may have other advantages to recommend them for use in clinical practice (e.g. being more objective, more reproducible, acting as a second opinion or as an educational tool). Future studies should therefore assess the impact of prognostic tools on clinical practice and decision-making.

摘要

目的

姑息预后(PaP)评分、姑息预后指数(PPI)、费利乌预后诺莫图(FPN)和姑息治疗表现量表(PPS)均已被提出作为姑息治疗癌症患者的预后工具。然而,临床判断仍然是姑息治疗专业人员确定预后的主要方法,重要的是要将预后工具的性能与生存的临床预测(CPS)进行比较。

方法

这是一项多中心、队列验证研究,涉及预后工具。研究参与者为接受姑息治疗的晚期癌症成人,无论是否有能力同意。主要预后数据在基线时、刚转介到姑息治疗服务后收集。CPS 由医生和护士独立获得。

结果

在 1833 名参与者中收集了预后数据。所有预后工具的区分度和校准度均令人满意,但均未显示优于 CPS。PaP 和 CPS 都能同样准确地根据患者在 30 天内死亡的风险对患者进行分类。根据患者在 15、30 或 60 天内死亡的风险对患者进行分层时,CPS 和 FPN 的性能没有差异。PPI 在预测哪些患者将存活 3 或 6 周时明显(p<0.001)差于 CPS。PPS 和 CPS 均能将姑息治疗患者区分成多个同预后组。

结论

尽管四种常用于姑息治疗的常用预后算法通常具有良好的区分度和校准度,但没有一种算法优于 CPS。准确性不如 CPS 的预后工具在临床上没有用处。然而,与 CPS 性能相似的预后工具可能具有其他优势,推荐在临床实践中使用(例如,更客观、更可重现、作为第二意见或教育工具)。因此,未来的研究应评估预后工具对临床实践和决策的影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/711e/8081205/d66e75d0198b/pone.0249763.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验