台湾晚期癌症患者的改良客观预后评分的验证。

IF 1.1 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Palliative medicine reports Pub Date : 2024-09-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1089/pmr.2024.0036
Yusuke Hiratsuka, Sang-Yeon Suh, Seok Joon Yoon, Shao-Yi Cheng, Sung-Eun Choi, Sun Hyun Kim, David Hui, Ping-Jen Chen, Hsien-Liang Huang, Jen-Kuei Peng, Masanori Mori, Takashi Yamaguchi, Isseki Maeda, Satoru Tsuneto, Tatsuya Morita
{"title":"台湾晚期癌症患者的改良客观预后评分的验证。","authors":"Yusuke Hiratsuka, Sang-Yeon Suh, Seok Joon Yoon, Shao-Yi Cheng, Sung-Eun Choi, Sun Hyun Kim, David Hui, Ping-Jen Chen, Hsien-Liang Huang, Jen-Kuei Peng, Masanori Mori, Takashi Yamaguchi, Isseki Maeda, Satoru Tsuneto, Tatsuya Morita","doi":"10.1089/pmr.2024.0036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Modified versions of the Objective Prognostic Score (mOPS) needs to be validated to reflect practical palliative care circumstances in Taiwan.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We compared the abilities of an mOPS score of 1.5 or higher versus a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 30 or lower to predict 2-week mortality in patients with advanced cancer in Taiwan.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Observational study.</p><p><strong>Setting/subjects: </strong>We performed a secondary analysis of an international multicenter cohort study of patients in East Asia. Participants were inpatients with advanced cancer in palliative care units (PCUs) in Taiwan.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>We compared the mOPS-B model, which does not require laboratory tests, with the KPS in a 2-week survival timeframe. We compared the accuracy of the prognostic models using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Calibration plots and net reclassification indices (NRI) for 2-week survival were compared between the two models. Differences in survival between the higher- and lower-scoring groups of each model were identified using the log-rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 317 patients, with a median survival of 14.0 days. The mOPS-B had a high sensitivity (0.82) and high AUROC value (0.69). By contrast, the KPS demonstrated good sensitivity (0.77) and an acceptable AUROC value (0.65) for predicting 2-week survival. The calibration plot did not demonstrate satisfactory agreement between the actual and predicted survival times in either the mOPS-B or the KPS groups. Our NRI was positive (absolute value: 22%), indicating that mOPS-B predicted 2-week survival better than KPS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The mOPS-B may serve better than the KPS as a screening tool for admission to PCUs in Taiwan because it was more accurate at predicting 2-week survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":74394,"journal":{"name":"Palliative medicine reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of Modified Objective Prognostic Score in Patients with Advanced Cancer in Taiwan.\",\"authors\":\"Yusuke Hiratsuka, Sang-Yeon Suh, Seok Joon Yoon, Shao-Yi Cheng, Sung-Eun Choi, Sun Hyun Kim, David Hui, Ping-Jen Chen, Hsien-Liang Huang, Jen-Kuei Peng, Masanori Mori, Takashi Yamaguchi, Isseki Maeda, Satoru Tsuneto, Tatsuya Morita\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/pmr.2024.0036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Modified versions of the Objective Prognostic Score (mOPS) needs to be validated to reflect practical palliative care circumstances in Taiwan.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We compared the abilities of an mOPS score of 1.5 or higher versus a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 30 or lower to predict 2-week mortality in patients with advanced cancer in Taiwan.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Observational study.</p><p><strong>Setting/subjects: </strong>We performed a secondary analysis of an international multicenter cohort study of patients in East Asia. Participants were inpatients with advanced cancer in palliative care units (PCUs) in Taiwan.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>We compared the mOPS-B model, which does not require laboratory tests, with the KPS in a 2-week survival timeframe. We compared the accuracy of the prognostic models using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Calibration plots and net reclassification indices (NRI) for 2-week survival were compared between the two models. Differences in survival between the higher- and lower-scoring groups of each model were identified using the log-rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 317 patients, with a median survival of 14.0 days. The mOPS-B had a high sensitivity (0.82) and high AUROC value (0.69). By contrast, the KPS demonstrated good sensitivity (0.77) and an acceptable AUROC value (0.65) for predicting 2-week survival. The calibration plot did not demonstrate satisfactory agreement between the actual and predicted survival times in either the mOPS-B or the KPS groups. Our NRI was positive (absolute value: 22%), indicating that mOPS-B predicted 2-week survival better than KPS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The mOPS-B may serve better than the KPS as a screening tool for admission to PCUs in Taiwan because it was more accurate at predicting 2-week survival.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Palliative medicine reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491570/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Palliative medicine reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2024.0036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative medicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2024.0036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:客观预后评分(mOPS)的修正版需要进行验证,以反映台湾姑息治疗的实际情况:客观预后评分(mOPS)的修改版需要进行验证,以反映台湾姑息治疗的实际情况:我们比较了 mOPS 1.5 分或更高与 Karnofsky 表情状态(KPS)30 分或更低在预测台湾晚期癌症患者两周死亡率方面的能力:观察性研究:我们对一项针对东亚地区患者的国际多中心队列研究进行了二次分析。参与者为台湾姑息治疗病房(PCU)的晚期癌症住院患者:我们比较了无需实验室检测的 mOPS-B 模型与 KPS 在 2 周生存期内的预测结果。我们使用灵敏度、特异性和接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)比较了预后模型的准确性。我们还比较了两种模型的校准图和 2 周生存率的净再分类指数 (NRI)。使用对数秩检验确定了每个模型中得分较高和较低组别之间的生存率差异:我们共纳入了 317 名患者,中位生存期为 14.0 天。mOPS-B 的灵敏度高(0.82),AUROC 值高(0.69)。相比之下,KPS 预测 2 周生存率的灵敏度(0.77)较高,AUROC 值(0.65)可接受。无论是 mOPS-B 组还是 KPS 组,校准图都没有显示出实际生存时间与预测生存时间之间令人满意的一致性。我们的NRI为正值(绝对值:22%),表明mOPS-B比KPS更能预测2周生存率:结论:在台湾,mOPS-B作为PCU入院筛查工具的作用可能优于KPS,因为它能更准确地预测2周存活率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Validation of Modified Objective Prognostic Score in Patients with Advanced Cancer in Taiwan.

Background: Modified versions of the Objective Prognostic Score (mOPS) needs to be validated to reflect practical palliative care circumstances in Taiwan.

Objectives: We compared the abilities of an mOPS score of 1.5 or higher versus a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 30 or lower to predict 2-week mortality in patients with advanced cancer in Taiwan.

Design: Observational study.

Setting/subjects: We performed a secondary analysis of an international multicenter cohort study of patients in East Asia. Participants were inpatients with advanced cancer in palliative care units (PCUs) in Taiwan.

Measurements: We compared the mOPS-B model, which does not require laboratory tests, with the KPS in a 2-week survival timeframe. We compared the accuracy of the prognostic models using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Calibration plots and net reclassification indices (NRI) for 2-week survival were compared between the two models. Differences in survival between the higher- and lower-scoring groups of each model were identified using the log-rank test.

Results: We included 317 patients, with a median survival of 14.0 days. The mOPS-B had a high sensitivity (0.82) and high AUROC value (0.69). By contrast, the KPS demonstrated good sensitivity (0.77) and an acceptable AUROC value (0.65) for predicting 2-week survival. The calibration plot did not demonstrate satisfactory agreement between the actual and predicted survival times in either the mOPS-B or the KPS groups. Our NRI was positive (absolute value: 22%), indicating that mOPS-B predicted 2-week survival better than KPS.

Conclusions: The mOPS-B may serve better than the KPS as a screening tool for admission to PCUs in Taiwan because it was more accurate at predicting 2-week survival.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Characteristics, Outcomes and Factors for Place of Death in Patients Admitted to Community-Based Palliative Care Services in Shanghai China: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Nursing Practices for Dyspnea Management in Patients with Cancer Based on Monthly and Weekly Prognoses: A Multi-Site Cross-Sectional Study of Palliative Care Nurses in Japan. Is a Combination of Six Clinical Tests Useful as a Measure to Predict Short-Term Prognosis in Terminal Cancer Patients? A Prospective Observational Study in a Japanese Palliative Care Unit. The Surprise Question: Not Ready for Prime Time. Use of Nursing Support Among Nurses for Caregiver Burden in Family Caregivers of Terminally Ill Patients with Cancer in Palliative Care Units in Japan: Multisite Cross-Sectional Study.
×
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