Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 20, 2025

Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
Published on: September 27, 2024
Prognostic utility of Palliative Prognostic Index in advanced cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Si Qi Yoong1, Hui Zhang2,3, Dee Whitty4
1Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Objectives:
To evaluate the prognostic utility of Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) scores in predicting the death of adults with advanced cancer.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Six databases were searched for articles published from inception till 16 February 2024. Observational studies reporting time-to-event outcomes of PPI scores used in any setting, timing and score cutoffs were eligible. Participants were adults with advanced cancer residing in any setting. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool hazard, risk, or odds ratios. Findings were narratively synthesized when meta-analysis was not possible.
Results:
Twenty-three studies (n = 11,235 patients) were included. All meta-analyses found that higher PPI scores or risk categories were significantly associated with death and, similarly, in most narratively synthesized studies. PPI > 6 vs PPI ≤ 4 (pooled adjusted HR = 5.42, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 2.01-14.59, p = 0.0009; pooled unadjusted HR = 5.05, 95% CI 4.10-6.17, p < 0.00001), 4 < PPI ≤ 6 vs PPI ≤ 4 (pooled adjusted HR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.30-3.21, p = 0.002), PPI ≥ 6 vs PPI < 6 (pooled adjusted HR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.39-4.58, p = 0.005), PPI ≤ 4 vs PPI > 6 for predicting inpatient death (unadjusted RR = 3.48, 95% CI 2.46-4.91, p < 0.00001), and PPI as a continuous variable (pooled unadjusted HR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.22-1.38, p < 0.00001) were significant predictors for mortality. Changes in PPI scores may also be useful as a prognostic factor.
Significance Of Results:
A higher PPI score is likely an independent prognostic factor for an increased risk of death, but more research is needed to validate the risk groups as defined by the original development study. Meta-analysis results need to be interpreted cautiously, as only 2-4 studies were included in each analysis. Clinicians and researchers may find this useful for guiding decision-making regarding the suitability of curative and/or palliative treatments and clinical trial design.
More Related Videos
07:41Performing Data Mining And Integrative Analysis Of Biomarker in Breast Cancer Using Multiple Publicly Accessible Databases
Published on: May 17, 2019
07:32Author Spotlight: Investigating Immune Cell Dynamics in the Tumor Microenvironment — Challenges and Innovations in Cancer Prognosis
Published on: April 12, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...