Division of Psychiatry, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Biology, School of Health Sciences, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 14;17(4):e0267050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267050. eCollection 2022.
Prognostic information is important for patients with cancer, their families, and clinicians. In practice, survival predictions are made by clinicians based on their experience, judgement, and intuition. Previous studies have reported that clinicians' survival predictions are often inaccurate. This study reports a secondary analysis of data from the Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2) to assess the accuracy of survival estimates made by doctors and nurses.
Adult patients (n = 1833) with incurable, locally advanced or metastatic cancer, recently referred to palliative care services (community teams, hospital teams, and inpatient palliative care units) were recruited. Doctors (n = 431) and nurses (n = 777) provided independent prognostic predictions and an agreed multi-professional prediction for each patient. Clinicians provided prognostic estimates in several formats including predictions about length of survival and probability of surviving to certain time points. There was a minimum follow up of three months or until death (whichever was sooner; maximum follow-up 783 days). Agreed multi-professional predictions about whether patients would survive for days, weeks or months+ were accurate on 61.9% of occasions. The positive predictive value of clinicians' predictions about imminent death (within one week) was 77% for doctors and 79% for nurses. The sensitivity of these predictions was low (37% and 35% respectively). Specific predictions about how many weeks patients would survive were not very accurate but showed good discrimination (patients estimated to survive for shorted periods had worse outcomes). The accuracy of clinicians' probabilistic predictions (assessed using Brier's scores) was consistently better than chance, improved with proximity to death and showed good discrimination between groups of patients with different survival outcomes.
Using a variety of different approaches, this study found that clinicians predictions of survival show good discrimination and accuracy, regardless of whether the predictions are about how long or how likely patients are to survive. Accuracy improves with proximity to death. Although the positive predictive value of estimates of imminent death are relatively high, the sensitivity of such predictions is relatively low. Despite limitations, the clinical prediction of survival should remain the benchmark against which any innovations in prognostication are judged.
ISRCTN13688211. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13688211.
预后信息对癌症患者、他们的家人和临床医生都很重要。在实践中,生存预测是由临床医生根据他们的经验、判断和直觉做出的。以前的研究报告称,临床医生的生存预测往往不准确。本研究报告了对姑息治疗研究 II(PiPS2)数据的二次分析,以评估医生和护士做出的生存估计的准确性。
纳入了 1833 名患有不可治愈的局部晚期或转移性癌症的成年患者(n=1833),这些患者最近被转介到姑息治疗服务(社区团队、医院团队和住院姑息治疗单位)。医生(n=431)和护士(n=777)为每位患者提供了独立的预后预测和多专业一致的预测。临床医生以多种格式提供预后估计,包括对生存时间和生存到特定时间点的概率的预测。随访时间至少为 3 个月或直到死亡(以先到者为准;最大随访时间为 783 天)。对患者在天、周或月+以上时间内是否存活的多专业一致预测,准确率为 61.9%。医生和护士对即将死亡(在一周内)的预测的阳性预测值分别为 77%和 79%。这些预测的灵敏度较低(分别为 37%和 35%)。对患者将存活多少周的具体预测不太准确,但具有良好的区分能力(预计存活时间较短的患者预后较差)。临床医生概率预测的准确性(使用 Brier 评分评估)始终优于随机预测,且随着接近死亡而提高,并在不同生存结局的患者群体之间具有良好的区分能力。
本研究使用多种不同的方法发现,临床医生对生存的预测具有良好的区分度和准确性,无论预测的是患者的生存时间长短还是生存的可能性大小。准确性随着接近死亡而提高。尽管估计即将死亡的预测的阳性预测值相对较高,但这些预测的灵敏度相对较低。尽管存在局限性,但生存预测的临床评估仍应作为判断预后创新的基准。
ISRCTN13688211。http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13688211。