In recent years, extensive research has been performed to identify prognostic factors that predict survival in terminally ill cancer patients. This study describes the construction of a simple prognostic score based on factors identified in a prospective multicenter study of 519 patients with a median survival of 32 days. An exponential multiple regression model was adopted to evaluate the joint effect of some clinico-biological variables on survival. From an initial model containing 36 variables, a final parsimonious model was obtained by means of a backward selection procedure. The Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP Score) is based on the final model and includes the following variables: Clinical Prediction of Survival (CPS), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), anorexia, dyspnea, total white blood count (WBC) and lymphocyte percentage. A numerical score was given to each variable, based on the relative weight of the independent prognostic significance shown by each single category in the multivariate analysis. The sum of the single scores gives the overall PaP Score for each patient and was used to subdivide the study population into three groups, each with a different probability of survival at 30 days: (1) group A: probability of survival at 30 days > 70%, with patient score < or = 5.5; (2) group B: probability of survival at 30 days 30-70%, with patient score 5.6-11.0; and (3) group C: probability of survival at 30 days < 30%, with patient score > 11.0. Using this method, 178/519 (34.3%) patients were classified in risk group A, 205 (39.5%) patients were in risk group B, and 136 (26.2%) patients were in risk group C. The patients classified in the three risk groups had a very different survival experience (logrank = 294.8, P < 0.001), with a median survival of 64 days for group A, 32 days for group B, and 11 days for group C. The PaP Score based on simple clinical and biohumoral variables proved to be statistically significant in a multivariate analysis. The score is valid in this population (training set). An independent validation on another patient series (testing set) is required and is the object of a companion paper.

Because BP-EP is a significant phenomenon in cancer pain management, its appropriate recognition requires a more widely, internationally accepted general definition and specific validated tools for its screening and evaluation.

BackgroundThere is an increasing requirement to assess outcomes, but few measures have been tested for advanced medical illness. We aimed to test the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS), and to analyse predictors of change after the transition to palliative care.MethodsPhase 1: multicentre, mixed method study comprising cognitive and qualitative interviews with patients and staff, cultural refinement and adaption. Phase 2: consecutive cancer patients on admission to 8 inpatient hospices and 7 home-based teams were asked to complete the POS, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Sp (T0), to assess internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity. After 6 days (T1) patients and staff completed the POS to assess responsiveness to change (T1-T0), and agreement between self-assessed POS and POS completed by the staff. Finally, we asked hospices an assessment 24–48 h after T1 to assess its reliability (test re-test analysis).ResultsPhase I: 209 completed POS questionnaires and 29 cognitive interviews were assessed, revisions made and one item substituted. Phase II: 295 consecutive patients admitted to 15 PCTs were approached, 175 (59.3 %) were eligible, and 150 (85.7 %) consented. Consent was limited by the severity of illness in 40 % patients. We found good convergent validity, with strong and moderate correlations (r ranged 0.5–0.8) between similar items from the POS, the QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Sp. As hypothesised, the physical function subscale of QLQ-C15-PAL was not correlated with any POS item (r ranged -0.16–0.02). We found acceptable to good test re-test reliability in both versions for 6 items. We found significant clinical improvements during the first week of palliative care in 7/10 items assessed-pain, other symptoms, patient and family anxiety, information, feeling at peace and wasted time.ConclusionsBoth the patient self-assessed and professional POS versions are valid and with an acceptable internal consistency. POS detected significant clinical improvements during palliative care, at a time when patients are usually expected to deteriorate. These results suggest that there is room for substantial improvement in the management of patients with advanced disease, across all key domains-symptoms, psychological, information, social and spiritual.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0095-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This paper is aimed at focusing on the writings and the experience of the Hospice movement Founder, Dame Cicely Saunders. The in-depth analysis carried out had the objective of verifying if “the way” of Cicely to understand, live and propose palliative care was still current and “beautiful”, so that we can nowadays refer to her fascinating “Original Palliative Care”. With “beauty” we mean, on the one hand, a way able to allow a personal path of research of the meaning of the disease and of the care, both for those who care and for those who are cared for. On the other hand, it seems to us that Cicely strongly suggests how this path can not be carried out alone, but is only possible within the context of a network of relationships and support, in a so called “relational autonomy”, for the patient, included in a “care ethics”. The authors believe that the work extensively documents as the overall approach of Cicely, traditional but always to be rediscovered, is still today the most convincing way of conception and action of palliative care.

No abstract