The Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2): A prospective observational validation study of a prognostic tool with an embedded qualitative evaluation.

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.

Prognostic tools or clinical predictions: Which are better in palliative care?

PURPOSE: The Palliative Prognostic (PaP) score; Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI); Feliu Prognostic Nomogram (FPN) and Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) have all been proposed as prognostic tools for palliative cancer care. However, clinical judgement remains the principal way by which palliative care professionals determine prognoses and it is important that the performance of prognostic tools is compared against clinical predictions of survival (CPS). METHODS: This was a multi-centre, cohort validation study of prognostic tools. Study participants were adults with advanced cancer receiving palliative care, with or without capacity to consent. Key prognostic data were collected at baseline, shortly after referral to palliative care services. CPS were obtained independently from a doctor and a nurse. RESULTS: Prognostic data were collected on 1833 participants. All prognostic tools showed acceptable discrimination and calibration, but none showed superiority to CPS. Both PaP and CPS were equally able to accurately categorise patients according to their risk of dying within 30 days. There was no difference in performance between CPS and FPN at stratifying patients according to their risk of dying at 15, 30 or 60 days. PPI was significantly (p<0.001) worse than CPS at predicting which patients would survive for 3 or 6 weeks. PPS and CPS were both able to discriminate palliative care patients into multiple iso-prognostic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although four commonly used prognostic algorithms for palliative care generally showed good discrimination and calibration, none of them demonstrated superiority to CPS. Prognostic tools which are less accurate than CPS are of no clinical use. However, prognostic tools which perform similarly to CPS may have other advantages to recommend them for use in clinical practice (e.g. being more objective, more reproducible, acting as a second opinion or as an educational tool). Future studies should therefore assess the impact of prognostic tools on clinical practice and decision-making.

Modafinil and cognitive enhancement in schizophrenia and healthy volunteers: the effects of test battery in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive deficits in schizophrenia have major functional impacts. Modafinil is a cognitive enhancer whose effect in healthy volunteers is well-described, but whose effects on the cognitive deficits of schizophrenia appear to be inconsistent. Two possible reasons for this are that cognitive test batteries vary in their sensitivity, or that the phase of illness may be important, with patients early in their illness responding better. METHODS: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled single-dose crossover study of modafinil 200 mg examined this with two cognitive batteries [MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) and Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB)] in 46 participants with under 3 years' duration of DSM-IV schizophrenia, on stable antipsychotic medication. In parallel, the same design was used in 28 age-, sex-, and education-matched healthy volunteers. Uncorrected p values were calculated using mixed effects models. RESULTS: In patients, modafinil significantly improved CANTAB Paired Associate Learning, non-significantly improved efficiency and significantly slowed performance of the CANTAB Stockings of Cambridge spatial planning task. There was no significant effect on any MCCB domain. In healthy volunteers, modafinil significantly increased CANTAB Rapid Visual Processing, Intra-Extra Dimensional Set Shifting and verbal recall accuracy, and MCCB social cognition performance. The only significant differences between groups were in MCCB visual learning. CONCLUSIONS: As in earlier chronic schizophrenia studies, modafinil failed to produce changes in cognition in early psychosis as measured by MCCB. CANTAB proved more sensitive to the effects of modafinil in participants with early schizophrenia and in healthy volunteers. This confirms the importance of selecting the appropriate test battery in treatment studies of cognition in schizophrenia.