• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
    • Division of Medicine
    • Specialist Medicine
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
    • Division of Medicine
    • Specialist Medicine
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of EMERCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsProfilesView

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Links

    About EMERPoliciesDerbyshire Community Health Services NHS Foundation TrustLeicester Partnership TrustNHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire CCGNottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation TrustNottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustSherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustUniversity Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation TrustUniversity Hospitals Of Leicester NHS TrustOther Resources

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Prognostic models of survival in patients with advanced incurable cancer: the PiPS2 observational study.

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Author
    Keeley, Vaughan
    Keyword
    Prognosis in Palliative Care
    Survival Rates
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: The Prognosis in Palliative care Study (PiPS) prognostic survival models predict survival in patients with incurable cancer. PiPS-A (Prognosis in Palliative care Study - All), which involved clinical observations only, and PiPS-B (Prognosis in Palliative care Study - Blood), which additionally required blood test results, consist of 14- and 56-day models that combine to create survival risk categories: 'days', 'weeks' and 'months+'. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to compare PIPS-B risk categories against agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival and to validate PiPS-A and PiPS-B. The secondary objectives were to validate other prognostic models, to assess the acceptability of the models to patients, carers and health-care professionals and to identify barriers to and facilitators of clinical use. DESIGN: This was a national, multicentre, prospective, observational, cohort study with a nested qualitative substudy using interviews with patients, carers and health-care professionals. SETTING: Community, hospital and hospice palliative care services across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: For the validation study, the participants were adults with incurable cancer, with or without capacity to consent, who had been recently referred to palliative care services and had sufficient English language. For the qualitative substudy, a subset of participants in the validation study took part, along with informal carers, patients who declined to participate in the main study and health-care professionals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For the validation study, the primary outcomes were survival, clinical prediction of survival and PiPS-B risk category predictions. The secondary outcomes were predictions of PiPS-A and other prognostic models. For the qualitative substudy, the main outcomes were participants' views about prognostication and the use of prognostic models. RESULTS: For the validation study, 1833 participants were recruited. PiPS-B risk categories were as accurate as agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival (61%; p = 0.851). Discrimination of the PiPS-B 14-day model (c-statistic 0.837, 95% confidence interval 0.810 to 0.863) and the PiPS-B 56-day model (c-statistic 0.810, 95% confidence interval 0.788 to 0.832) was excellent. The PiPS-B 14-day model showed some overfitting (calibration in the large -0.202, 95% confidence interval -0.364 to -0.039; calibration slope 0.840, 95% confidence interval 0.730 to 0.950). The PiPS-B 56-day model was well-calibrated (calibration in the large 0.152, 95% confidence interval 0.030 to 0.273; calibration slope 0.914, 95% confidence interval 0.808 to 1.02). PiPS-A risk categories were less accurate than agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival (p < 0.001). The PiPS-A 14-day model (c-statistic 0.825, 95% confidence interval 0.803 to 0.848; calibration in the large -0.037, 95% confidence interval -0.168 to 0.095; calibration slope 0.981, 95% confidence interval 0.872 to 1.09) and the PiPS-A 56-day model (c-statistic 0.776, 95% confidence interval 0.755 to 0.797; calibration in the large 0.109, 95% confidence interval 0.002 to 0.215; calibration slope 0.946, 95% confidence interval 0.842 to 1.05) had excellent or reasonably good discrimination and calibration. Other prognostic models were also validated. Where comparisons were possible, the other prognostic models performed less well than PiPS-B. For the qualitative substudy, 32 health-care professionals, 29 patients and 20 carers were interviewed. The majority of patients and carers expressed a desire for prognostic information and said that PiPS could be helpful. Health-care professionals said that PiPS was user friendly and may be helpful for decision-making and care-planning. The need for a blood test for PiPS-B was considered a limitation. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalisable to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: PiPS-B risk categories are as accurate as agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival. PiPS-A categories are less accurate. Patients, carers and health-care professionals regard PiPS as potentially helpful in clinical practice. FUTURE WORK: A study to evaluate the impact of introducing PiPS into routine clinical practice is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13688211. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
    Citation
    Health Technol Assess. 2021 May;25(28):1-118. doi: 10.3310/hta25280.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/14824
    Collections
    Specialist Medicine

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.