Multidisciplinary Prognostication Using the Palliative Prognostic Score in an Australian Cancer Center.

Palliative Care Pub Date : 2015-08-02 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01 DOI:10.4137/PCRT.S24411
Ruwani Mendis, Wee-Kheng Soo, Diana Zannino, Natasha Michael, Odette Spruyt
{"title":"Multidisciplinary Prognostication Using the Palliative Prognostic Score in an Australian Cancer Center.","authors":"Ruwani Mendis,&nbsp;Wee-Kheng Soo,&nbsp;Diana Zannino,&nbsp;Natasha Michael,&nbsp;Odette Spruyt","doi":"10.4137/PCRT.S24411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Accurate prognostication is important in oncology and palliative care. A multidisciplinary approach to prognostication provides a novel approach, but its accuracy and application is poorly researched. In this study, we describe and analyze our experience of multidisciplinary prognostication in palliative care patients with cancer.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess our accuracy of prognostication using multidisciplinary team prediction of survival (MTPS) alone and within the Palliative Prognostic (PaP) Score.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included all new patients referred to a palliative care consultation service in a tertiary cancer center between January 2010 and December 2011. Initial assessment data for 421 inpatients and 223 outpatients were analyzed according to inpatient and outpatient groups to evaluate the accuracy of prognostication using MTPS alone and within the PaP score (MTPS-PaP) and their correlation with overall survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inpatients with MTPS-PaP group A, B, and C had a median survival of 10.9, 3.4, and 0.7 weeks, respectively, and a 30-day survival probability of 81%, 40%, and 10%, respectively. Outpatients with MTPS-PaP group A and B had a median survival of 17.3 and 5.1 weeks, respectively, and a 30-day survival probability of 94% and 50%, respectively. MTPS overestimated survival by a factor of 1.5 for inpatients and 1.2 for outpatients. The MTPS-PaP score correlated better than MTPS alone with overall survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study suggests that a multidisciplinary team approach to prognostication within routine clinical practice is possible and may substitute for single clinician prediction of survival within the PaP score without detracting from its accuracy. Multidisciplinary team prognostication can assist treating teams to recognize and articulate prognosis, facilitate treatment decisions, and plan end-of-life care appropriately. PaP was less useful in the outpatient setting, given the longer survival interval of the outpatient palliative care patient group.</p>","PeriodicalId":56348,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4137/PCRT.S24411","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4137/PCRT.S24411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Context: Accurate prognostication is important in oncology and palliative care. A multidisciplinary approach to prognostication provides a novel approach, but its accuracy and application is poorly researched. In this study, we describe and analyze our experience of multidisciplinary prognostication in palliative care patients with cancer.

Objectives: To assess our accuracy of prognostication using multidisciplinary team prediction of survival (MTPS) alone and within the Palliative Prognostic (PaP) Score.

Methods: This retrospective study included all new patients referred to a palliative care consultation service in a tertiary cancer center between January 2010 and December 2011. Initial assessment data for 421 inpatients and 223 outpatients were analyzed according to inpatient and outpatient groups to evaluate the accuracy of prognostication using MTPS alone and within the PaP score (MTPS-PaP) and their correlation with overall survival.

Results: Inpatients with MTPS-PaP group A, B, and C had a median survival of 10.9, 3.4, and 0.7 weeks, respectively, and a 30-day survival probability of 81%, 40%, and 10%, respectively. Outpatients with MTPS-PaP group A and B had a median survival of 17.3 and 5.1 weeks, respectively, and a 30-day survival probability of 94% and 50%, respectively. MTPS overestimated survival by a factor of 1.5 for inpatients and 1.2 for outpatients. The MTPS-PaP score correlated better than MTPS alone with overall survival.

Conclusion: This study suggests that a multidisciplinary team approach to prognostication within routine clinical practice is possible and may substitute for single clinician prediction of survival within the PaP score without detracting from its accuracy. Multidisciplinary team prognostication can assist treating teams to recognize and articulate prognosis, facilitate treatment decisions, and plan end-of-life care appropriately. PaP was less useful in the outpatient setting, given the longer survival interval of the outpatient palliative care patient group.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚癌症中心使用姑息预后评分进行多学科预测。
背景:准确的预后在肿瘤学和姑息治疗中很重要。多学科预测方法提供了一种新颖的方法,但其准确性和应用研究很少。在这项研究中,我们描述和分析我们在姑息治疗癌症患者的多学科预后的经验。目的:评估我们使用多学科团队生存预测(MTPS)单独和姑息预后(PaP)评分预测的准确性。方法:本回顾性研究纳入2010年1月至2011年12月在三级癌症中心接受姑息治疗咨询服务的所有新患者。根据住院组和门诊组对421例住院患者和223例门诊患者的初步评估数据进行分析,以评估单独使用MTPS和在PaP评分(MTPS-PaP)内预测的准确性及其与总生存期的相关性。结果:MTPS-PaP A、B和C组住院患者的中位生存期分别为10.9、3.4和0.7周,30天生存率分别为81%、40%和10%。MTPS-PaP A组和B组门诊患者的中位生存期分别为17.3周和5.1周,30天生存率分别为94%和50%。MTPS对住院患者和门诊患者的生存率分别高估了1.5倍和1.2倍。MTPS- pap评分与总生存期的相关性优于单独的MTPS。结论:本研究表明,在常规临床实践中,多学科团队预测方法是可能的,并且可以替代单个临床医生在PaP评分中预测生存,而不会降低其准确性。多学科团队预测可以帮助治疗团队识别和明确预后,促进治疗决策,并计划适当的临终关怀。考虑到门诊姑息治疗患者组的生存期较长,PaP在门诊环境中的作用较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Palliative Care and Social Practice is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes articles on all aspects of palliative care. It welcomes articles from symptom science, clinical practice, and health services research. However, its aim is also to publish cutting-edge research from the realm of social practice - from public health theory and practice, social medicine, and social work, to social sciences related to dying and its care, as well as policy, criticism, and cultural studies. We encourage reports from work with under-represented groups, community development, and studies of civic engagement in end of life issues. Furthermore, we encourage scholarly articles that challenge current thinking about dying, its current care models and practices, and current understandings of grief and bereavement. We want to showcase the next generation of palliative care innovation research and practice - in clinics and in the wider society. Relaunched in July 2019. Partnered with Public Health Palliative Care International (PHPCI) (Title 2008-2018: - Palliative Care: Research and Treatment)
期刊最新文献
2022-RA-747-ESGO Quality of end-of-life care and patterns of palliative care use by women with gynaecologic malignancies in Ontario, Canada: a 13-year population-based retrospective analysis 2022-RA-1238-ESGO Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in oligometastatic gynaecological malignancies 2022-RA-1043-ESGO CT-guided percutenous radiologic gastrostomy in heavily pretreated patients with late stage ovarian cancer: -the charité experiences- 2022-RA-854-ESGO Giving prognostic information by using scenarios – attitudes of women with gynecological cancer 1022 Documenting the journey from DNACPR to surgical R zero – radical extent in a young patient with metastatic undifferentiated leiomyosarcoma relapse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1