Suppr超能文献

晚期癌症的预后姑息治疗研究、姑息预后指数、姑息预后评分及客观预后评分:一项前瞻性比较。

Prognosis palliative care study, palliative prognostic index, palliative prognostic score and objective prognostic score in advanced cancer: a prospective comparison.

作者信息

Lee Seung Hun, Lee Jeong Gyu, Choi Young Jin, Seol Young Mi, Kim Hyojeong, Kim Yun Jin, Yi Yu Hyeon, Tak Young Jin, Kim Gyu Lee, Ra Young Jin, Lee Sang Yeoup, Cho Young Hye, Park Eun Ju, Lee Youngin, Choi Jungin, Lee Sae Rom, Kwon Ryuk Jun, Son Soo Min

机构信息

Family Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea (the Republic of).

Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea (the Republic of).

出版信息

BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021 Jul 2. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003077.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

预测晚期癌症患者的生存期是临终关怀和姑息治疗的重要组成部分。已经开发了各种预后模型,但在韩国尚未进行充分比较。

目的

我们旨在比较姑息治疗研究预后(PiPS)、姑息预后指数(PPI)、姑息预后评分(PaP)和客观预后评分(OPS)在韩国一家姑息治疗病房中对晚期癌症患者的预测准确性。

方法

这项前瞻性研究纳入了国立大学医院单一姑息治疗病房收治的晚期癌症患者。计算预后模型所需的变量由一名姑息治疗医生记录。采用Kaplan-Meier法估计生存率。计算每个模型的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。

结果

共有160名患者参与。通过五种预后模型分类的所有组的生存率存在显著差异。预后模型的总体准确率(OA)在54.5%至77.6%之间。临床医生对生存预测的OA在61.9%至81.3%之间。

结论

PiPS、PPI、PaP和OPS在韩国一家姑息治疗病房中得到了成功验证。预后模型之间的准确性没有差异,且OA往往低于先前的研究。

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