To evaluate the prognostic utility of Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) scores in predicting the death of adults with advanced cancer.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Six databases were searched for articles published from inception till 16 February 2024. Observational studies reporting time-to-event outcomes of PPI scores used in any setting, timing and score cutoffs were eligible. Participants were adults with advanced cancer residing in any setting. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool hazard, risk, or odds ratios. Findings were narratively synthesized when meta-analysis was not possible.

Twenty-three studies (n = 11,235 patients) were included. All meta-analyses found that higher PPI scores or risk categories were significantly associated with death and, similarly, in most narratively synthesized studies. PPI > 6 vs PPI ≤ 4 (pooled adjusted HR = 5.42, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 2.01–14.59, p = 0.0009; pooled unadjusted HR = 5.05, 95% CI 4.10–6.17, p < 0.00001), 4 < PPI ≤ 6 vs PPI ≤ 4 (pooled adjusted HR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.30–3.21, p = 0.002), PPI ≥ 6 vs PPI < 6 (pooled adjusted HR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.39–4.58, p = 0.005), PPI ≤ 4 vs PPI > 6 for predicting inpatient death (unadjusted RR = 3.48, 95% CI 2.46–4.91, p < 0.00001), and PPI as a continuous variable (pooled unadjusted HR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.22–1.38, p < 0.00001) were significant predictors for mortality. Changes in PPI scores may also be useful as a prognostic factor.

A higher PPI score is likely an independent prognostic factor for an increased risk of death, but more research is needed to validate the risk groups as defined by the original development study. Meta-analysis results need to be interpreted cautiously, as only 2–4 studies were included in each analysis. Clinicians and researchers may find this useful for guiding decision-making regarding the suitability of curative and/or palliative treatments and clinical trial design.