» Articles » PMID: 11742480

Prognostic Value of Performance Status Assessed by Patients Themselves, Nurses, and Oncologists in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Overview
Journal Br J Cancer
Specialty Oncology
Date 2001 Dec 18
PMID 11742480
Citations 89
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Accuracy in the assessment of performance status by oncologists has not been well evaluated. We investigated possible discrepancies in the assessment of performance status among patients, nurses, and oncologists, and evaluated the prognostic importance of each assessment. Two hundred and six inpatients with inoperable, advanced non-small cell lung cancer were investigated prospectively. Weighted Kappa statistics for inter-observer agreement were 0.53 between oncologists and patients and 0.63 between oncologists and nurses. There was a significant difference among the assessments by the three groups (P < 0.001). Oncologists gave the healthiest performance status assessment, nurses an intermediate assessment, and patients the poorest. When included separately in the Cox model, the assessment by each group was significantly correlated with survival. However, the assessment by the patients themselves failed to distinguish survival of patients with performance status 1 and 2. Among the three models including patient-, nurse-, and oncologist-assessed PS, that including oncologist-assessed PS best fitted to the observed survival data. These results showed that the assessment by the patients themselves is different from those by the nurses and the oncologists and provided additional support for the use of the assessment by oncologists in clinical oncology.

Citing Articles

Smartphone-based measures as real-world indicators of functional status in advanced cancer patients.

Straczkiewicz M, Keating N, Schonholz S, Matulonis U, Horowitz N, Campos S medRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39974129 PMC: 11838621. DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.04.25321686.


Patient-reported performance status and postoperative complications in elective colorectal cancer surgery.

Pardes H, Dohrn N, Dolin T, Gogenur I, Klein M Int J Colorectal Dis. 2024; 39(1):187.

PMID: 39567406 PMC: 11579060. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-024-04761-1.


Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Prognostication in Gastroesophageal Cancer: Results of a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Megid T, Sharma D, Baskurt Z, Xiaolu Ma L, Wang X, Barron C Oncologist. 2024; 29(4):316-323.

PMID: 38431782 PMC: 10994401. DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyae010.


Biomarkers of systemic inflammation provide additional prognostic stratification in cancers of unknown primary.

Harvey S, Stares M, Scott J, Thottiyil T, Conway A, Haigh R Cancer Med. 2024; 13(3):e6988.

PMID: 38404120 PMC: 10895198. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6988.


A proposed multi-domain, digital model for capturing functional status and health-related quality of life in oncology.

Izmailova E, Wagner J, Bakker J, Kilian R, Ellis R, Ohri N Clin Transl Sci. 2024; 17(1):e13712.

PMID: 38266055 PMC: 10774540. DOI: 10.1111/cts.13712.


References
1.
Hutchinson T, Boyd N, Feinstein A, Gonda A, Hollomby D, Rowat B . Scientific problems in clinical scales, as demonstrated in the Karnofsky index of performance status. J Chronic Dis. 1979; 32(9-10):661-6. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(79)90096-1. View

2.
Sneeuw K, Aaronson N, Sprangers M, Detmar S, Wever L, Schornagel J . Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses. Br J Cancer. 1999; 81(1):87-94. PMC: 2374350. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690655. View

3.
Oken M, Creech R, Tormey D, Horton J, Davis T, McFadden E . Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982; 5(6):649-55. View

4.
Schag C, Heinrich R, Ganz P . Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984; 2(3):187-93. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1984.2.3.187. View

5.
Presant C . Quality of life in cancer patients. Who measures what?. Am J Clin Oncol. 1984; 7(5):571-3. DOI: 10.1097/00000421-198410000-00036. View