Palliative prognostic scores for survival prediction of cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

The Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) is the most widely validated prognostic tool for cancer survival prediction, with modified versions available. A systematic evaluation of PaP tools is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance and prognostic utility of PaP, Delirium-PaP (D-PaP), and PaP without clinician prediction in predicting 30-day survival of cancer patients and compare their performance. Six databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies and grey literature published from inception till 2/6/2023. English studies must assess PaP, D-PaP, or PaP without clinician predicted survival for 30-day survival in adults ≥18 years old with any stage or type of cancer. Outcomes were pooled using the random effects model or summarised narratively when meta-analysis was not possible. Thirty-nine studies (n = 10,617 patients) were included. PaP is an accurate prognostic tool (pooled AUC = 0.82, 95% CI 0.79-0.84) and outperforms PaP without clinician predicted survival (pooled AUC = 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.78), suggesting that the original PaP should be preferred. The meta-analysis found PaP and D-PaP performance to be comparable. Most studies reported survival probabilities corresponding to the PaP risk groups, and higher risk groups were significantly associated with shorter survival. PaP is a validated prognostic tool for cancer patients that can enhance clinicians' confidence and accuracy in predicting survival. Future studies should investigate if accuracy differs depending on clinician characteristics. Reporting of validation studies must be improved, as most studies were at high risk of bias, primarily because calibration was not assessed.