Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36449290›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Development of a Clinical Prediction Model for 1-Year Mortality in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

Catherine Owusuaa, Annemieke van der Padt-Pruijsten, Jan C Drooger, Joan B Heijns, Anne-Marie Dietvorst, Ellen C J Janssens-van Vliet, Daan Nieboer, Joachim G J V Aerts, Agnes van der Heide, Carin C D van der Rijt

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Predicting 1-year mortality in older cancer patients: performance of G8, SPPB, and IF-VIG in the PROFIT Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Validation of the prognostic model "oncologiq palliative" for head and neck cancer patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine OwusuaaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Annemieke van der Padt-PruijstenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jan C DroogerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Joan B HeijnsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Amphia, Breda, the Netherlands.
Anne-Marie DietvorstDepartment of Internal Medicine, Van Weel Bethesda Hospital, Dirksland, the Netherlands.
Ellen C J Janssens-van VlietDepartment of Internal Medicine, Admiraal de Ruyter Hospital, Goes, the Netherlands.
Daan NieboerDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Joachim G J V AertsDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Agnes van der HeideDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Carin C D van der RijtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLAdmiraal De Ruyter Ziekenhuis · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLIkazia Ziekenhuis · NLMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLZiekenhuis Bethesda · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: To optimize palliative care in patients with cancer who are in their last year of life, timely and accurate prognostication is needed. However, available instruments for prognostication, such as the surprise question ("Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year?") and various prediction models using clinical variables, are not well validated or lack discriminative ability. Objective: To develop and validate a prediction model to calculate the 1-year risk of death among patients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective prognostic study was performed in the general oncology inpatient and outpatient clinics of 6 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 867 patients were enrolled between June 2 and November 22, 2017, and followed up for 1 year. The primary analyses were performed from October 9 to 25, 2019, with the most recent analyses performed from June 19 to 22, 2022. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to develop a prediction model including 3 categories of candidate predictors: clinician responses to the surprise question, patient clinical characteristics, and patient laboratory values. Data on race and ethnicity were not collected because most patients were expected to be of White race and Dutch ethnicity, and race and ethnicity were not considered as prognostic factors. The models' discriminative ability was assessed using internal-external validation by study hospital and measured using the C statistic. Patients 18 years and older with locally advanced or metastatic cancer were eligible. Patients with hematologic cancer were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The risk of death by 1 year. Results: Among 867 patients, the median age was 66 years (IQR, 56-72 years), and 411 individuals (47.4%) were male. The 1-year mortality rate was 41.6% (361 patients). Three prediction models with increasing complexity were developed: (1) a simple model including the surprise question, (2) a clinical model including the surprise question and clinical characteristics (age, cancer type prognosis, visceral metastases, brain metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, weight loss, pain, and dyspnea), and (3) an extended model including the surprise question, clinical characteristics, and laboratory values (hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, and serum albumin). The pooled C statistic was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67-0.71) for the simple model, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.78) for the clinical model, and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.76-0.80) for the extended model. A nomogram and web-based calculator were developed to support clinicians in adequately caring for patients with advanced cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a prediction model including the surprise question, clinical characteristics, and laboratory values had better discriminative ability in predicting death among patients with advanced cancer than models including the surprise question, clinical characteristics, or laboratory values alone. The nomogram and web-based calculator developed for this study can be used by clinicians to identify patients who may benefit from palliative care and advance care planning. Further exploration of the feasibility and external validity of the model is needed.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryAgedFemaleHumansMaleModels, StatisticalPalliative CarePrognosisProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36449290
PMCPMC9713606
OpenAlexW4310477535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.