Observational studyHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2021
Prognostic models of survival in patients with advanced incurable cancer: the PiPS2 observational study.
Observational study in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prognostic models for survival predictions in advanced cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC palliative care · 2025Pooled it
- Prognostic evaluation in patients with advanced cancer in the last months of life: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline.ESMO open · 2023Guideline
- End-of-life prognostic models in advanced cancer: a scoping review of model development, validation, and impact.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Urinary metabolite model to predict the dying process in lung cancer patients.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Fixing the Leaky Pipe: How to Improve the Uptake of Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Prognostic and Predictive Models in Cancer Clinical Practice.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
- Accuracy of clinical predictions of prognosis at the end-of-life: evidence from routinely collected data in urgent care records.BMC palliative care · 2023Observational
- Prediction of Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Narrative Review and Future Research Priorities.Journal of hospice and palliative care · 2023Review
- GC-MS Techniques Investigating Potential Biomarkers of Dying in the Last Weeks with Lung Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of the PaP Score Nomogram for Terminally Ill Cancer Patients.Cancers · 2022Article
- Prognostication in palliative radiotherapy-ProPaRT: Accuracy of prognostic scores.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 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+'.
objectivesThe 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.
designThis was a national, multicentre, prospective, observational, cohort study with a nested qualitative substudy using interviews with patients, carers and health-care professionals.
settingCommunity, hospital and hospice palliative care services across England and Wales.
participantsFor 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 measuresFor 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.
resultsFor the validation study, 1833 participants were recruited. PiPS-B risk categories were as accurate as agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival (61%; LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalisable to other populations.
conclusionsPiPS-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 registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN13688211.
fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.