Prognostic models for survival predictions in advanced cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract Background Prognostication of survival among patients with advanced cancer is essential for palliative care (PC) planning. The implementation of a clinical point-of-care prognostic model may inform clinicians and facilitate decision-making. While early PC referral yields better clinical out...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | BMC Palliative Care |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-025-01696-4 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract Background Prognostication of survival among patients with advanced cancer is essential for palliative care (PC) planning. The implementation of a clinical point-of-care prognostic model may inform clinicians and facilitate decision-making. While early PC referral yields better clinical outcomes, actual referral time differs by clinical contexts and accessible. To summarize the various prognostic models that may cater to these needs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL Ultimate, and Scopus to identify eligible studies focusing on incurable solid tumors, validation of prognostic models, and measurement of predictive performances. Model characteristics and performances were summarized in tables. Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was adopted for risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis of individual models, where appropriate, was performed by pooling C-index. Results 35 studies covering 35 types of prognostic models were included. Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), and Objective Prognostic Score (OPS) were most frequently identified models. The pooled C-statistic of PPI for 30-day survival prediction was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.62–0.73, n = 6). The pooled C-statistic of PaP for 30-day survival prediction was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.70–0.80, n = 11), while that for 21-day survival prediction was 0.80 (0.71–0.86, n = 4). The pooled C-statistic of OPS for 30-days survival prediction was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.65–0.72, n = 3). All included studies had high risk of bias. Conclusion PaP appears to perform better but further validation and implementation studies were needed for confirmation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1472-684X |