1. The Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2): A prospective observational validation study of a prognostic tool with an embedded qualitative evaluation
- Author
-
Rumana Z Omar, D. Finlay, Vaughan Keeley, P. Buckle, John R. Griffiths, Karen Spencer, Chris Todd, Anastasia K. Kalpakidou, Patrick Stone, and Victoria Vickerstaff
- Subjects
Male ,Palliative care ,Epidemiology ,Physiology ,Cohort Studies ,0302 clinical medicine ,Risk Factors ,Neoplasms ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Prospective Studies ,Aged, 80 and over ,Multidisciplinary ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,030503 health policy & services ,Cancer Risk Factors ,Palliative Care ,Qualitative Studies ,Middle Aged ,Prognosis ,Body Fluids ,Blood ,Oncology ,Caregivers ,Research Design ,Medicine ,lipids (amino acids, peptides, and proteins) ,Female ,Incurable cancer ,Anatomy ,0305 other medical science ,Cohort study ,Research Article ,musculoskeletal diseases ,Validation study ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Patients ,Science ,Health Personnel ,MEDLINE ,Research and Analysis Methods ,Interviews as Topic ,03 medical and health sciences ,Diagnostic Medicine ,parasitic diseases ,medicine ,Blood test ,Humans ,Aged ,business.industry ,fungi ,Cancers and Neoplasms ,Biology and Life Sciences ,body regions ,Health Care ,Family medicine ,Medical Risk Factors ,Observational study ,business ,Qualitative research - Abstract
Background Prognosis in Palliative care Study (PiPS) models predict survival probabilities in advanced cancer. PiPS-A (clinical observations only) and PiPS-B (additionally requiring blood results) consist of 14- and 56-day models (PiPS-A14; PiPS-A56; PiPS-B14; PiPS-B56) to create survival risk categories: days, weeks, months. The primary aim was to compare PIPS-B risk categories against agreed multi-professional estimates of survival (AMPES) and to validate PiPS-A and PiPS-B. Secondary aims were to assess acceptability of PiPS to patients, caregivers and health professionals (HPs). Methods and findings A national, multi-centre, prospective, observational, cohort study with nested qualitative sub-study using interviews with patients, caregivers and HPs. Validation study participants were adults with incurable cancer; with or without capacity; recently referred to community, hospital and hospice palliative care services across England and Wales. Sub-study participants were patients, caregivers and HPs. 1833 participants were recruited. PiPS-B risk categories were as accurate as AMPES [PiPS-B accuracy (910/1484; 61%); AMPES (914/1484; 61%); p = 0.851]. PiPS-B14 discrimination (C-statistic 0.837) and PiPS-B56 (0.810) were excellent. PiPS-B14 predictions were too high in the 57–74% risk group (Calibration-in-the-large [CiL] -0.202; Calibration slope [CS] 0.840). PiPS-B56 was well-calibrated (CiL 0.152; CS 0.914). PiPS-A risk categories were less accurate than AMPES (p Conclusions PiPS-B risk categories are as accurate as AMPES made by experienced doctors and nurses. PiPS-A categories are less accurate. Patients, carers and HPs regard PiPS as potentially helpful in clinical practice. Study registration ISRCTN13688211.
- Published
- 2021