Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2025

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
The Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2): A prospective observational validation study of a prognostic tool
P C Stone1, A Kalpakidou1, C Todd2,3,4
1Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
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<0.001). PiPS-A14 (C-statistic 0.825; CiL -0.037; CS 0.981) and PiPS-A56 (C-statistic 0.776; CiL 0.109; CS 0.946) had excellent or reasonably good discrimination and calibration. Interviewed patients (n = 29) and caregivers (n = 20) wanted prognostic information and considered that PiPS may aid communication. HPs (n = 32) found PiPS user-friendly and considered risk categories potentially helpful for decision-making. The need for a blood test for PiPS-B was considered a limitation.
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.
More Related Videos
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Methods of Documentation III: PIE
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease-IV: Assessement and Diagnostic Studies
Medical History
Chronic Pancreatitis II: Collaborative Care
Assessment:
Cancer Survival Analysis
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care