ArticleCancer medicine2026
Comparison of Survival Prognostic Tools in Terminal-Stage Tumor Patients: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimPrevious studies have discussed the effectiveness of the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), and Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score (D-PaP) in predicting the survival of patients with terminal-stage tumors, but their effectiveness in the Chinese terminal-stage tumor population still needs to be explored. Therefore, we conducted this prospective cohort study to investigate the applicability of KPS, PPS, PPI, and D-PaP in predicting survival in Chinese patients with terminal-stage tumors.
methodsThis is a prospective cohort study that collected data from 449 terminal-stage tumor patients across four medical institutions in China from January to December 2024. The feasibility of using KPS, PPS, PPI, and D-PaP to predict the 7-day and 30-day survival of terminal-stage tumor patients was discussed through ROC curves. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to examine the survival differences of terminal-stage tumor patients using four survival prediction tools with new cut-off values.
resultsThe study ultimately included 449 patients with terminal-stage tumors. For the prediction of 30-day survival, the area under the ROC curve of KPS, PPI, PPS, and D-PaP was 0.842, 0.749, 0.778, and 0.898, respectively. In our study cohort, the optimal cut-off values were 25, 3, 35, and 9.25. Their corresponding sensitivity was 86.3%, 92.3%, 77.7%, and 76.0%, while their specificity was 69.7%, 44.4%, 67.7%, and 93.9%, respectively.
conclusionThe results of this multicenter cohort analysis reveal that in terminal-stage tumor patients in China, KPS, PPS, PPI, and D-PaP are all effective for predicting survival. Specifically, D-PaP is more applicable for predicting 30-day survival. Although D-PaP showed the most significant predictive power, its accuracy in predicting 7-day and 30-day survival outcomes was not significantly superior to that of experienced palliative care professionals. Therefore, future research still needs to develop or update scoring tools with better predictive performance.
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.