Association between Percent Body Fat and Low High-Density Lipoproteinemia in Middle-Aged Men in Korea.

Background: Obesity is a significant health risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Dyslipidemia, defined as a low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level, is associated with these risks. Recent bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices offer precise measurements of the percent body fat (PBF). We aimed to determine the association between PBF and HDL-C levels in middle-aged men in Korea. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional sstudy of men aged 40-65 years who visited a health examination center. Body composition was analyzed using BIA. Health habits were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire. The participants were divided into four groups based on their PBF: group 1 (<21%), group 2 (21%-23.99%), group 3 (24%-28.99%), and group 4 (≥29%). Logistic regression was used to obtain the odds ratio (OR) between the PBF group and the low HDL-C level and adjusted for other variables. Results: In this study, 2,685 men were analyzed. The number of individuals diagnosed with low HDL-C levels increased significantly as the group-specific PBF increased. Group 4 showed a 5.5-fold greater association with low HDL-C compared to group 1 (P<0.01), whereas group 3 and group 2 showed an OR of 4.38 and 2.95 (P<0.01 and P<0.01), respectively. Conclusion: These results suggest that if middle-aged men are able to decrease their body fat by <5%, their HDL-C levels will increase. We suggest that 3%-5% PBF is a useful guideline for general body fat reduction in Korean middle- aged men in primary care.

Are Surprise Questions and Probabilistic Questions by Nurses Useful in Home Palliative Care? A Prospective Study.

Background: Surprise questions (SQs) are used as screening tools in palliative care. Probabilistic questions (PQs) are more accurate than temporal predictions. However, no study has examined the usefulness of SQs and PQs assessed by nurses. Objectives: To examine the accuracy of nurses' SQ and PQ assessments in patients with advanced cancer receiving home palliative care. Design: A prospective single-center cohort study. Setting/Subjects: Adult patients with advanced cancer who received palliative care at home in South Korea between 2019 and 2020. Measurements: Palliative care specialized nurses were asked the SQ, "Would you be surprised if the patient died in a specific timeframe?" and PQ, "What is the probability that this patient will be alive (0 to 100%) within a specific timeframe?" at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-week timeframes at enrollment. We calculated the sensitivities and specificities of the SQs and PQs. Results: 81 patients were recruited with 47 days of median survival. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy (OA) of the 1-week SQ were 50.0, 93.2, and 88.9%, respectively. The accuracies for the 1-week PQ were 12.5, 100.0, and 91.3%, respectively. The 6-week SQ showed sensitivity, specificity, and OA of 84.6, 42.9, and 62.9%, respectively; the accuracies for the 6-week PQ were 59.0, 66.7, and 63.0%, respectively.Conclusion: The SQ and PQ showed acceptable accuracy in home palliative care patients. Interestingly, PQ showed higher specificity than SQ at all timeframes. The SQ and PQ assessed by nurses may be useful in providing additional prognostic information for home palliative care.

Improved Symptom Change Enhances Quality of Dying in Patients With Advanced Cancer: An East Asian Cross-Cultural Study.

BACKGROUND: Symptom burdens tend to increase for patients with cancer and their families over the disease trajectory. There is still a lack of evidence on the associations between symptom changes and the quality of dying and death. In this context, this research investigated how symptom changes influence the quality of dying and death. METHODS: This international prospective cohort study (the East Asian Collaborative Cross-Cultural Study to Elucidate the Dying Process (EASED), 2017-2019) included 22, 11, and 4 palliative care units across Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Eligible participants were adults (Japan and Korea, ≥18 years; Taiwan, ≥20 years) with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. Physical and psychological symptoms were assessed by physicians upon admission and within 3 days before death. Death quality was assessed using the Good Death Scale (GDS), developed in Taiwan. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify correlations between symptom severity changes and GDS scores. RESULTS: Among 998 patients (542 [54.3%] men and 456 [45.7%] women; mean [SD] age = 70.1 [± 12.5] years), persistent dyspnea was associated with lower GDS scores when compared to stable dyspnea (ß = -0.427, 95% CI = -0.783 to -0.071). Worsened (-1.381, -1.932 to -0.831) and persistent (-1.680, -2.701 to -0.659) delirium were also significantly associated with lower GDS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Better quality of dying and death was associated with improved symptom control, especially for dyspnea and delirium. Integrating an outcome measurement for the quality of dying and death is important in the management of symptoms across the disease trajectory in a goal-concordant manner.

How different are accuracies of clinicians' prediction of survival by assessment methods?

BACKGROUND: No standardized method has been established for evaluating the accuracy of a clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS). Till now, no study has compared the accuracy of CPS according to the evaluation methods using the same dataset. We aimed to examine the accuracy of CPS by different statistical approaches in patients with far-advanced cancer. METHODS: The current study was a secondary analysis of an international multicenter prospective cohort study. Newly admitted patients with advanced cancer were enrolled in palliative care units (PCUs) in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. We obtained the temporal CPS at enrollment. The patients were classified into groups of days (≤7 days) and weeks (≤30 days) based on CPS and actual survival (AS). We evaluated the accuracy of CPS by the distribution, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROCs), and an estimate ±33% of AS. RESULTS: A total of 2,571 patients were assessed and admitted in 37 PCUs between January 2017 and September 2018. As for the "days" category, the distribution of AS is larger than that of CPS, however, the results are reversed in the "weeks" category. The AUROCs showed over 80% discrimination for both the "days" and "weeks" categories. Accurate CPS within ±33% of AS was approximately 30% in both "days" and "weeks" categories. CONCLUSIONS: We showed a discrepancy of approximately 30-80% in the accuracy of CPS among three different analysis methods: distribution, AUROC, and AS comparison. Considering the low accuracy of AS comparisons, clinicians should provide a wide range of survival time. CPS was able to effectively discriminate and may be useful for risk stratification.

Comparison of Simplified Palliative Prognostic Index and Palliative Performance Scale in Patients with Advanced Cancer in a Home Palliative Care Setting.

Objective: The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) has been reported to be as accurate as Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI). PPS is a component of the simplified PPI (sPPI). It is unknown whether PPS is as accurate as sPPI. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of the PPS and sPPI in patients with advanced cancer in a home palliative care setting in South Korea. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study that included Korean patients with advanced cancer who received home-based palliative care. We used the medical records maintained by specialized palliative care nurses. We computed the prognostic performance of PPS and sPPI using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration plots for the 3- and 6-week survival. Results: A total of 80 patients were included, with a median overall survival of 47.0 days. The AUROCs of PPS were 0.71 and 0.69 at the 3- and 6-week survival predictions, respectively. The AUROCs of sPPI were 0.87 and 0.73 at the 3- and 6-week survival predictions, respectively. The calibration plot demonstrated satisfactory agreement across all score ranges for both the PPS and sPPI. Conclusions: This study showed that the sPPI assessed by nurses was more accurate than the PPS in a home palliative care setting in predicting the 3-week survival in patients with advanced cancer. The PPS can be used for a quick assessment.

Prediction of Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Narrative Review and Future Research Priorities.

This paper aimed to summarize the current situation of prognostication for patients with an expected survival of weeks or months, and to clarify future research priorities. Prognostic information is essential for patients, their families, and medical professionals to make end-of-life decisions. The clinician's prediction of survival is often used, but this may be inaccurate and optimistic. Many prognostic tools, such as the Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and Prognosis in Palliative Care Study, have been developed and validated to reduce the inaccuracy of the clinician's prediction of survival. To date, there is no consensus on the most appropriate method of comparing tools that use different formats to predict survival. Therefore, the feasibility of using prognostic scales in clinical practice and the information wanted by the end users can determine the appropriate prognostic tool to use. We propose four major themes for further prognostication research: (1) functional prognosis, (2) outcomes of prognostic communication, (3) artificial intelligence, and (4) education for clinicians.

Should the Surprise Question be Used as a Prognostic Tool for People With Life-limiting Illnesses?

The surprise question screening tool ("Would I be surprised if this person died within the next 12 months?") was initially developed to identify possible palliative care needs. One controversial topic regarding the surprise question is whether it should be used as a prognostic tool (predicting survival) for patients with life-limiting illnesses. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three groups of expert clinicians independently answered this question. All experts provide an overview of current literature, practical advice, and opportunities for future research. All experts reported on the inconsistency of the prognostic capabilities of the surprise question. Two of the three expert groups felt that the surprise question should not be used as a prognostic tool due to these inconsistencies. The third expert group felt that the surprise question should be used as a prognostic tool, particularly for shorter time frames. The experts all highlighted that the original rationale for the surprise question was to trigger a further conversation about future treatment and a potential shift in the focus of the care, identifying patients who many benefit from specialist palliative care or advance care planning; however, many clinicians find this discussion a difficult one to initiate. The experts agreed that the benefit of the surprise question comes from its simplicity: a one-question tool that requires no specific information about the patient's condition. More research is needed to better support the application of this tool in routine practice, particularly in noncancer populations.

Validation of Modified Models of Objective Prognostic Score in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

Background: The objective prognostic score (OPS) needs to be modified to reflect practical palliative care circumstances. Objectives: We aimed to validate modified models of OPS with few or no laboratory tests for patients with advanced cancer. Design: An observational study was performed. Setting/Subjects: A secondary analysis of an international, multicenter cohort study of patients in East Asia was performed. The subjects were inpatients with advanced cancer in the palliative care unit. Measurements: We developed two modified OPS (mOPS) models to predict two-week survival: mOPS-A consisted of two symptoms, two objective signs, and three laboratory results, while mOPS-B consisted of three symptoms, two signs, and no laboratory data. We compared the accuracy of the prognostic models using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Calibration plots for two-week survival and net reclassification indices (NRIs) were compared for the two models. Survival differences between higher and lower score groups of each model were identified by the log-rank test. Results: We included a total of 1796 subjects having median survival of 19.0 days. We found that mOPS-A had higher specificity (0.805-0.836) and higher AUROCs (0.791-0.797). In contrast, mOPS-B showed higher sensitivity (0.721-0.725) and acceptable AUROCs (0.740-0.751) for prediction of two-week survival. Two mOPSs showed good concordance in calibration plots. Considering NRIs, replacing the original OPS with mOPSs improved overall reclassification (absolute NRI: 0.47-4.15%). Higher score groups of mOPS-A and mOPS-B showed poorer survival than those of lower score groups (p < 0.001). Conclusions: mOPSs used reduced laboratory data and had relatively good accuracy for predicting survival in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care.

Cross-cultural comparison of continuous deep sedation for advanced cancer patients in East Asian countries: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Cultural, social, and legal factors have been known to affect physicians' practice of continuous deep sedation. There have been few quantitative studies to compare continuous deep sedation practice in Asian countries. We aimed to describe and compare clinical characteristics of continuous deep sedation in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer admitted to participating palliative care units were enrolled from January 2017 to September 2018. We evaluated and compared (i) the prevalence of continuous deep sedation, (ii) the characteristics of sedated and non-sedated groups in each country, and (iii) continuous deep sedation administration patterns among the three countries. RESULTS: A total of 2158 participants were included in our analysis, and 264 received continuous deep sedation. The continuous deep sedation prevalence was 10, 16 and 22% in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively. Delirium was the most frequent target symptom in all countries, along with dyspnoea (in Japan) and psychological symptoms (in Korea). Midazolam was most frequently used in Japan and Taiwan, but not in Korea (P < 0.001). Among the patients receiving continuous deep sedation, the hydration amount on the final day was significantly different, with median volumes of 200, 500 and 0 mL in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively (P < 0.001). In Korea, 33% of the continuous deep sedation administration caused a high degree of physicians' discomfort, but 3% in Japan and 5% in Taiwan (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practices of continuous deep sedation and physicians' discomfort related to continuous deep sedation initiation highly varied across countries. We need to develop optimal decision-making models of continuous deep sedation and hydration during continuous deep sedation in each country.

Clinicians' Prediction of Survival and Prognostic Confidence in Patients with Advanced Cancer in Three East Asian Countries.

Background: Little is known about accuracy and confidence of clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS) in East-Asian countries. Objective: We aimed to examine accuracy of CPS for 7-, 21-, and 42-day survival in palliative inpatients and its association with prognostic confidence. Design: An international prospective cohort study in Japan (JP), Korea (KR), and Taiwan (TW). Setting/Subjects: Subjects were inpatients with advanced cancer admitted to 37 palliative care units in three countries. Measurements: Discrimination of CPS was investigated through sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) according to 7-, 21-, and 42-day survival. The accuracies of CPS were compared with those of Performance Status-based Palliative Prognostic Index (PS-PPI). Clinicians were instructed to rate confidence level on a 0-10-point scale. Results: A total of 2571 patients were analyzed. The specificity was highest at 93.2-100.0% for the 7-day CPS, and sensitivity was highest at 71.5-86.8% for the 42-day CPS. The AUROCs of the seven-day CPS were 0.88, 0.94, and 0.89, while those of PS-PPI were 0.77, 0.69, and 0.69 for JP, KR, and TW, respectively. As for 42-day prediction, sensitivities of PS-PPI were higher than those of CPS. Clinicians' confidence was strongly associated with the accuracy of prediction in all three countries (all p-values <0.01). Conclusions: CPS accuracies were highest (0.88-0.94) for the seven-day survival prediction. CPS was more accurate than PS-PPI in all timeframe prediction except 42-day prediction in KR. Prognostic confidence was significantly associated with the accuracy of CPS.

Is spiritual well-being related to survival time of inpatients with advanced cancer? An East Asian cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: It has been suggested that psychosocial factors are related to survival time of inpatients with cancer. However, there are not many studies examining the relationship between spiritual well-being (SWB) and survival time among countries. This study investigated the relationship between SWB and survival time among three East Asian countries. METHODS: This international multicenter cohort study is a secondary analysis involving newly admitted inpatients with advanced cancer in palliative care units in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. SWB was measured using the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) at admission. We performed multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model to identify independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 2,638 patients treated at 37 palliative care units from January 2017 to September 2018 were analyzed. The median survival time was 18.0 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.5-19.5) in Japan, 23.0 days (95% CI 19.9-26.1) in Korea, and 15.0 days (95% CI 13.0-17.0) in Taiwan. SWB was a significant factor correlated with survival in Taiwan (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% CI 1.01-1.59; p = 0.04), while it was insignificant in Japan (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.00-1.22; p = 0.06), and Korea (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.77-1.35; p = 0.89). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: SWB on admission was associated with survival in patients with advanced cancer in Taiwan but not Japan or Korea. The findings suggest the possibility of a positive relationship between spiritual care and survival time in patients with far advanced cancer.

Mid-upper Arm Circumference as an Indicator of Quality of Life of Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Objective: Mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) has been used to assess malnutrition and health status across various disease groups. However, it is unclear whether MUAC is associated with quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced cancer. Our goal was to investigate the relationship between MUAC and QOL in ambulatory out-patients with advanced cancer. Method: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a tertiary cancer center in South Korea. A total of 200 patients with advanced cancer at oncology clinics of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from March 2016 to January 2019 were enrolled. Out-patients with advanced cancer whose survival was expected to be less than one year by their oncologists were enrolled. QOL of patients was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Associations of QOL with MUAC and nutritional parameters were examined with generalized linear models. Results: The most common cancer sites were the lung, colon or rectum, and genitourinary tract. In univariate analyses, significant factors associated with higher summary score of EORTC QLQ-C30 were higher MUAC (≥ 26.5 cm, p < 0.001), higher body mass index (BMI) (≥ 22 kg/m2, p < 0.001), higher serum albumin (≥ 3.7 g/dL, p < 0.01), higher creatinine (≥ 0.8 mg/dL, p = 0.023), and higher uric acid (≥ 5 mg/dL, p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, higher serum albumin (≥ 3.7 g/dL, p < 0.01) and higher MUAC (≥ 26.5 cm, p = 0.03) were independently associated with better summary score of EORTC QLQ-C-30. Conclusion: MUAC was highly associated with QOL in terms of summary score and overall health status. Thus, MUAC, with its simplicity, can be a useful tool to reflect QOL in patients with advanced cancer.

Performance of mid-upper arm circumference and other prognostic indices based on inflammation and nutrition in oncology outpatients: a tertiary cancer center study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the performance of established inflammation and nutrition-based prognostic indices with a relatively novel index 'mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC)' in outpatients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study that enrolled 200 outpatients with advanced cancer visiting a medical oncology clinic at a tertiary hospital. All patients were followed until death, and the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), modified GPS (mGPS), Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR), and MUAC were compared by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64.4 years, 64.0% were male, and the median overall survival was 32.4 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6-142.7]. Overall, all indices showed similarly high AUROCs for estimating 12-week (0.68 to 0.75) and 24-week survival (0.67 to 0.74). When confined to the GPS, mGPS, and MUAC, the AUROCs for 12-week survival were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82), 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.82), and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64-0.79), respectively. For 24-week survival, the AUROCs were 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.76), 0.67 (95% CI: 0.60-0.74), and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64-0.79), respectively. MUAC had the highest specificity for estimating 12-week survival (86.0%), while GPS showed the highest sensitivity for estimating 12-week survival (81.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Inflammation and nutrition-based prognostic indices showed similar acceptable accuracies in estimating the 12- and 24-week survival of oncology outpatients. Notably, a simple and non-invasive index MUAC, showed comparable performance with established indices including GPS and mGPS.

Comparison of Objective Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score performance in inpatients with advanced cancer in Japan and Korea.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate prognostication is important for patients and their families to prepare for the end of life. Objective Prognostic Score (OPS) is an easy-to-use tool that does not require the clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS), whereas Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) needs CPS. Thus, inexperienced clinicians may hesitate to use PaP. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of OPS compared with PaP in inpatients in palliative care units (PCUs) in three East Asian countries. METHOD: This study was a secondary analysis of a cross-cultural, multicenter cohort study. We enrolled inpatients with far-advanced cancer in PCUs in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan from 2017 to 2018. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve to compare the accuracy of OPS and PaP. RESULTS: A total of 1,628 inpatients in 33 PCUs in Japan and Korea were analyzed. OPS and PaP were calculated in 71.7% of the Japanese patients and 80.0% of the Korean patients. In Taiwan, PaP was calculated for 81.6% of the patients. The AUROC for 3-week survival was 0.74 for OPS in Japan, 0.68 for OPS in Korea, 0.80 for PaP in Japan, and 0.73 for PaP in Korea. The AUROC for 30-day survival was 0.70 for OPS in Japan, 0.71 for OPS in Korea, 0.79 for PaP in Japan, and 0.74 for PaP in Korea. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Both OPS and PaP showed good performance in Japan and Korea. Compared with PaP, OPS could be more useful for inexperienced physicians who hesitate to estimate CPS.

Are Prognostic Scores Better Than Clinician Judgment? A Prospective Study Using Three Models.

CONTEXT: Several prognostic models such as the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) have been developed to complement clinician's prediction of survival (CPS). However, few studies with large scales have been conducted to show which prognostic tool had better performance than CPS in patients with weeks of survival. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the prognostic performance of the PPS, PPI, PaP, and CPS in inpatients admitted to palliative care units (PCUs). METHODS: This study was part of a multi-center prospective observational study involving patients admitted to PCUs in Japan. We computed their prognostic performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and calibration plots for seven, 14-, 30- and 60-day survival. RESULTS: We included 1896 patients with a median overall survival of 19 days. The AUROC was 73% to 84% for 60-day and 30-day survival, 75% to 84% for 14-day survival, and 80% to 87% for seven-day survival. The calibration plot demonstrated satisfactory agreement between the observational and predictive probability for the four indices in all timeframes. Therefore, all four prognostic indices showed good performance. CPS and PaP consistently had significantly better performance than the PPS and PPI from one-week to two-month timeframes. CONCLUSION: The PPS, PPI, PaP, and CPS had relatively good performance in patients admitted to PCUs with weeks of survival. CPS and PaP had significantly better performance than the PPS and PPI. CPS may be sufficient for experienced clinicians while PPS may help to improve prognostic confidence for inexperienced clinicians.

The association between changes in symptoms or quality of life and overall survival in outpatients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several prognostic tools have been developed to aid clinicians in survival prediction. However, changes in symptoms are rarely included in established prognostic systems. We aimed to investigate the influence of changes in symptoms and quality of life (QOL) on survival time in outpatients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Study subjects included a subgroup of those with longitudinal symptom and QOL data within a larger, single-site parent study. We assessed patients' symptoms and QOL at enrollment and follow-up at an approximately 3-month interval. Patients' symptoms were evaluated by the Korean version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (K-ESAS). QOL was checked by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Participants were categorized into three groups by changes in symptoms or QOL. These groups were: improved (having at least a one level of improvement in the response scale), stable (no change), or worsened (at least a one level of worsening in the scale). We compared survival time in the improved plus stable vs. worsened groups, using a log-rank test. RESULTS: We analyzed 60 patients, with a median survival time of 346 days. In the Worsened group, depression (P<0.01) and sleep disturbance (P<0.01) by K-ESAS, and dyspnea (P<0.03) per the EORTC QLQ-C30, were statistically significantly related to shorter survival time compared to 'improved and stable' group. There was no relationship between changes in other symptoms, overall QOL, and survival. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal assessment of depression, sleep disturbance and dyspnea may be useful in prognostication of patients with advanced cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings with more consecutive assessments in diverse populations.

Performance of clinician prediction of survival in oncology outpatients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the performance of clinician prediction of survival (CPS) and the association between CPS and the prognostic confidence of clinicians in ambulatory medical oncology outpatients. METHODS: Eight medical oncologists estimated the expected survival of their patients in a prospective cohort study. They were asked to provide a temporal type of CPS in weeks, together with their level of confidence for each prediction (0-100%). We analyzed the accuracy of CPS, the association between CPS and the prognostic confidence, and the characteristics of patients showing inaccurate CPS. RESULTS: A total of 200 advanced cancer patients were enrolled and the median overall survival was 7.6 months. CPS was accurate in 67 (33.5%) patients, underestimated in 87 (43.5%), and overestimated in 46 (23.0%). The overall accuracy of CPS for 12-week, 24-week, 36-week, and 48-week survival was 83.0%, 72.0%, 75.5%, and 74.0%, respectively. The specificity was highest for 12-week survival (90.2%) and the sensitivity was highest for 48-week survival (96.1%). The sensitivity of 12-week CPS was 51.4% and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.87). The prognostic confidence of clinicians was not significantly associated with the accuracy of prediction (P = 0.359). Patients with overestimated survival had significantly poorer global health status and physical/role/emotional functioning in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Additionally, they showed significantly higher levels of fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, and loss of appetite. CONCLUSION: The overall accuracy of CPS in predicting 12-week to 48-week survival was high in medical oncology outpatients. However the sensitivity of 12-week CPS was low and prognostic confidence was not associated with the accuracy of CPS. Patients with overestimated CPS showed poorer quality of life and higher symptom burden.