Survival prognosis in patients with terminal cancer plays an important role in clinical decision-making, policy formulation, and end-stage patient with relatives. To date, foreign researchers have developed multiple survival prediction models based on patient clinical performance, biomarkers and other indicators, along with a large number of studies which have been externally verified, including Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score (D-PaP), and Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), etc. China's research on this topic remains in the primary stage. Therefore, this article reviews the prognostic factors of terminal cancer and survival prediction models as well as applications, in order to provide references for the subsequent construction of survival prediction models for patients with terminal cancer in line with Chinese characteristics.
Cancer is a disease that incidence rate, disability rate and mortality rate are high all over the world. It brings great physical and mental pain to patients. Cancer patients are in a life-threatening state of disease for a long time, which will produce fear of progression (FoP). FoP is a psychological state in which fear of disease may recur or progress. As early as the 1980s, foreign countries began the psychological research on the FoP of cancer patients. They found that this fear really exists in cancer patients and is affected by many factors. This paper reviews the concept of FoP and the related factors affecting FoP in cancer patients. The purpose is to provide reference for clinical early evaluation and reducing the FoP of cancer patients and formulating corresponding nursing measures.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the degree of psychological pain for cancer patients undergoing surgical treatment and analyze the contributory factors to provide the theoretical basis for psychological intervention for cancer patients with surgical treatment.MethodsThe clinical data of 455 cancer patients who received surgeries in our hospital from November 2020 to January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, including 225 males and 230 females aged 53.80±13.50 years. By applying the method of convenient sampling, a cross-sectional survey was carried out by gathering the general information of the patients and evaluating their mental condition with the distress thermometer. The contributory factors were discussed by logistic regression analysis.ResultsThe score for the psychological pain of the patients was 4.11±2.49 points. The main factors contributing to the psychological pain were physical problems, emotional problems and family matters. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main factors related to the degree of psychological pain were cancer types (P=0.023), religious belief (P=0.046), number of niduses (P=0.016), respiratory status (P=0.004), medical expense (P=0.007), grief (P=0.001) and anxiety (P=0.040).ConclusionNearly half of the patients have been subjected to apparent psychological pain, and emotion and physical problems are the main factors. It is crucial to pay attention to the patients’ mental problems, seek convenient tools for psychological evaluation, and take actions to deal with the psychological problems and physical symptoms.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews of the efficacy of cancer patient decision aids (PDAs) for treatment decision-making. MethodsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, JBI, CNKI, VIP, CBM and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect the systematic reviews relevant to the objective from inception to September 2023. Literature screening, data extraction, methodological quality assessment of the included literature, and summary and grading of the evidence were carried out independently by two researchers, and duplication of original studies in the included systematic evaluations was investigated using the corrected covered area (CCA). ResultsA total of 17 systematic reviews were included, of which 13 (76.47%) were low- or very low-quality studies. A total of 64 pieces of evidence were included, of which only 26 (40.62%) were of moderate quality, and the original studies included in the included literature had a low degree of overlap (CCA=0.05). The results of meta-analysis showed that PDAs could increase decision-related knowledge, reduce decision conflict and regret in cancer patients' treatment decision (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in decision satisfaction, anxiety or depression (P>0.05). ConclusionPDAs can improve cancer patients' knowledge related to treatment decision, reduce decision conflicts and regrets, and have no significant negative effects on decision preparation, satisfaction, anxiety, and depression. However, the existing systematic reviews are of low quality and limited to a few cancer types.