Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Survival Prediction in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients by Clinical Estimates, Laboratory Tests, and Self-Rated Anxiety and Depression

Gripp, Stephan, Moeller, Sibylle, Bölke, Edwin, Schmitt, Gerd, Matuschek, Christiane, Asgari, Sonja, Asgharzadeh, Farzin, Roth, Stephan, Budach, Wilfried, Franz, Matthias, Willers, Reinhardt·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To study how survival of palliative cancer patients relates to subjective prediction of survival, objective prognostic factors (PFs), and individual psychological coping. Patients and Methods: Survival was estimated according to three categories (< 1 month, 1 to 6 months, and > 6 months) by two physicians (A and B) and the institutional tumor board (C) for 216 patients recently referred for palliative radiotherapy. After 6 months, the accuracy of these estimates was assessed. The prognostic relevance of clinical symptoms, performance status, laboratory tests, and self-reported emotional distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) was investigated. Results: In 61%, 55%, and 63% of the patients, prognoses were correctly estimated by A, B, and C, respectively. κ statistic showed fair agreement of the estimates, which proved to be overly optimistic. Accuracy of the three estimates did not improve with increasing professional experience. In particular, the survival of 96%, 71%, and 87% of patients who died in less than 1 month was overestimated by A, B, and C, respectively. On univariate analysis, 11 of 27 parameters significantly affected survival, namely performance status, primary cancer, fatigue, dyspnea, use of strong analgesics, brain metastases, leukocytosis, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), depression, and anxiety. On multivariate analysis, colorectal and breast cancer had a favorable prognosis, whereas brain metastases, Karnofsky performance status less than 50%, strong analgesics, dyspnea, LDH, and leukocytosis were associated with a poor prognosis. Conclusion: This study revealed that physicians' survival estimates were unreliable, especially in the case of patients near death. Self-reported emotional distress and objective PFs may improve the accuracy of survival estimates.

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.2006.10.5411

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 277

Metadata

Authors
Gripp, S., Moeller, S., Bölke, E., Schmitt, G., Matuschek, C., Asgari, S., Asgharzadeh, F., Roth, S., Budach, W., Franz, M., & Willers, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-08-01
Volume
25
Issue
22
Pages
3313-3320
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2165600579
Cited by
277
References
6
FWCI
15.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Survival Prediction in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients by Clinical Estimates, Laboratory Tests, and Self-Rated Anxiety and Depression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2006.10.5411
The paper
Gripp, S., Moeller, S., Bölke, E., Schmitt, G., Matuschek, C., Asgari, S., Asgharzadeh, F., Roth, S., Budach, W., Franz, M., & Willers, R. (2007). Survival Prediction in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients by Clinical Estimates, Laboratory Tests, and Self-Rated Anxiety and Depression. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.10.5411

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.