Abstract
BACKGROUND: The palliative prognostic score is the most widely validated prognostic tool for cancer survival prediction, with modified versions available. A systematic evaluation of palliative prognostic score tools is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance and prognostic utility of palliative prognostic score, delirium-palliative prognostic score, and palliative prognostic score without clinician prediction in predicting 30-day survival of cancer patients and to compare their performance. METHODS: Six databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies and grey literature published from inception to June 2, 2023. English studies must assess palliative prognostic score, delirium-palliative prognostic score, or palliative prognostic score without clinician-predicted survival for 30-day survival in adults aged 18 years and older with any stage or type of cancer. Outcomes were pooled using the random effects model or summarized narratively when meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies (n = 10 617 patients) were included. Palliative prognostic score is an accurate prognostic tool (pooled area under the curve [AUC] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79 to 0.84) and outperforms palliative prognostic score without clinician-predicted survival (pooled AUC = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.78), suggesting that the original palliative prognostic score should be preferred. The meta-analysis found palliative prognostic score and delirium-palliative prognostic score performance to be comparable. Most studies reported survival probabilities corresponding to the palliative prognostic score risk groups, and higher risk groups were statistically significantly associated with shorter survival. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative prognostic score is a validated prognostic tool for cancer patients that can enhance clinicians' confidence and accuracy in predicting survival. Future studies should investigate if accuracy differs depending on clinician characteristics. Reporting of validation studies must be improved, as most studies were at high risk of bias, primarily because calibration was not assessed.