Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 664

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic Factors in Advanced Cancer Patients: Evidence-Based Clinical Recommendations—A Study by the Steering Committee of the European Association for Palliative Care

Open access
Maltoni, Marco, Caraceni, Augusto, Brunelli, Cinzia, Broeckaert, Bert, Christakis, Nicholas, Eychmueller, Steffen, Glare, Paul, Nabal, Maria, Viganò, Antonio, Larkin, Philip, De Conno, Franco, Hanks, Geoffrey, Kaasa, Stein·2005·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To offer evidence-based clinical recommendations concerning prognosis in advanced cancer patients. Methods: A Working Group of the Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care identified clinically significant topics, reviewed the studies, and assigned the level of evidence. A formal meta-analysis was not feasible because of the heterogeneity of published studies and the lack of minimal standards in reporting results. A systematic electronic literature search within the main available medical literature databases was performed for each of the following four areas identified: clinical prediction of survival (CPS), biologic factors, clinical signs and symptoms and psychosocial variables, and prognostic scores. Only studies on patients with advanced cancer and survival ≤ 90 days were included. Results: A total of 38 studies were evaluated. Level A evidence-based recommendations of prognostic correlation could be formulated for CPS (albeit with a series of limitations of which clinicians must be aware) and prognostic scores. Recommendations on the use of other prognostic factors, such as performance status, symptoms associated with cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (weight loss, anorexia, dysphagia, and xerostomia), dyspnea, delirium, and some biologic factors (leukocytosis, lymphocytopenia, and C-reactive protein), reached level B. Conclusion: Prognostication of life expectancy is a significant clinical commitment for clinicians involved in oncology and palliative care. More accurate prognostication is feasible and can be achieved by combining clinical experience and evidence from the literature. Using and communicating prognostic information should be part of a multidisciplinary palliative care approach.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2005.06.866

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 664

Metadata

Authors
Maltoni, M., Caraceni, A., Brunelli, C., Broeckaert, B., Christakis, N., Eychmueller, S., Glare, P., Nabal, M., Viganò, A., Larkin, P., De Conno, F., Hanks, G., & Kaasa, S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2005-09-01
Volume
23
Issue
25
Pages
6240-6248
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2116976533
Cited by
664
References
5
FWCI
28.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognostic Factors in Advanced Cancer Patients: Evidence-Based Clinical Recommendations—A Study by the Steering Committee of the European Association for Palliative Care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.06.866
The paper
Maltoni, M., Caraceni, A., Brunelli, C., Broeckaert, B., Christakis, N., Eychmueller, S., Glare, P., Nabal, M., Viganò, A., Larkin, P., De Conno, F., Hanks, G., & Kaasa, S. (2005). Prognostic Factors in Advanced Cancer Patients: Evidence-Based Clinical Recommendations—A Study by the Steering Committee of the European Association for Palliative Care. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.06.866

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.