Literature DB >> 11742480

Prognostic value of performance status assessed by patients themselves, nurses, and oncologists in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

M Ando1, Y Ando, Y Hasegawa, K Shimokata, H Minami, K Wakai, Y Ohno, S Sakai.   

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. (c) 2001 Cancer Research Campaign

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11742480      PMCID: PMC2363970          DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.2162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  26 in total

1.  Performance status assessment in cancer patients.

Authors:  C Conill; E Verger; M Salamero
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Quality of life in cancer patients. Who measures what?

Authors:  C A Presant
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 2.339

3.  Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines.

Authors:  C C Schag; R L Heinrich; P A Ganz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Authors:  M M Oken; R H Creech; D C Tormey; J Horton; T E Davis; E T McFadden; P P Carbone
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 2.339

5.  Scientific problems in clinical scales, as demonstrated in the Karnofsky index of performance status.

Authors:  T A Hutchinson; N F Boyd; A R Feinstein; A Gonda; D Hollomby; B Rowat
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1979

6.  Prognostic factors in small cell lung cancer: multivariate model based on 778 patients treated with chemotherapy with or without irradiation.

Authors:  K Osterlind; P K Andersen
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  A randomized trial of the four most active regimens for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  J C Ruckdeschel; D M Finkelstein; D S Ettinger; R H Creech; B A Mason; R A Joss; S Vogl
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Comparison of the predictive power of different prognostic indices for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  B Lund; P Williamson; H C van Houwelingen; J P Neijt
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1990-08-01       Impact factor: 12.701

9.  Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?

Authors:  M L Slevin; H Plant; D Lynch; J Drinkwater; W M Gregory
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses.

Authors:  K C Sneeuw; N K Aaronson; M A Sprangers; S B Detmar; L D Wever; J H Schornagel
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  74 in total

1.  Serum lactate dehydrogenase levels at presentation in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: predictive value of metastases and relation to survival outcomes.

Authors:  Dong Soo Lee; Kyung Ran Park; Seung Joon Kim; Mi Joo Chung; Yun Hee Lee; Ji Hyun Chang; Jin Hyoung Kang; Sook Hee Hong; Myung Sin Kim; Yeon Sil Kim
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2015-08-04

2.  Variability of performance status assessment between patients with hematologic malignancies and their physicians.

Authors:  Alexis D Leal; Cristine Allmer; Matthew J Maurer; Tait D Shanafelt; James R Cerhan; Brian K Link; Carrie A Thompson
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2017-07-18

3.  Distinct Physical Function Profiles in Older Adults Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Christine Miaskowski; Melisa L Wong; Bruce A Cooper; Judy Mastick; Steven M Paul; Katherine Possin; Michael Steinman; Janine Cataldo; Laura B Dunn; Christine Ritchie
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 3.612

4.  Comparison of pre-treatment clinical prognostic factors in patients with gastro-oesophageal cancer and proposal of a new staging system.

Authors:  Andrew B C Crumley; Robert C Stuart; Margaret McKernan; James J Going; Christopher J Shearer; Donald C McMillan
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Patient-reported outcomes are associated with patient-oncologist agreement of performance status in a multi-ethnic Asian population.

Authors:  Chun Fan Lee; Raymond Ng; Nan Luo; Yin Bun Cheung
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Glasgow Prognostic Score is superior to ECOG PS as a prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer with peritoneal seeding.

Authors:  Shu-Qiang Yuan; Run-Cong Nie; Yong-Ming Chen; Hai-Bo Qiu; Xiao-Ping Li; Xiao-Jiang Chen; Li-Pu Xu; Li-Fang Yang; Xiao-Wei Sun; Yuan-Fang Li; Zhi-Wei Zhou; Shi Chen; Ying-Bo Chen
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 2.967

7.  Characteristics Associated With Physical Function Trajectories in Older Adults With Cancer During Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Melisa L Wong; Steven M Paul; Judy Mastick; Christine Ritchie; Michael A Steinman; Louise C Walter; Christine Miaskowski
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 3.612

8.  Co-occurrence of decrements in physical and cognitive function is common in older oncology patients receiving chemotherapy.

Authors:  Inger Utne; Bruce A Cooper; Christine Ritchie; Melisa Wong; Laura B Dunn; Borghild Loyland; Ellen Karine Grov; Marilyn J Hammer; Steven M Paul; Jon D Levine; Yvette P Conley; Kord M Kober; Christine Miaskowski
Journal:  Eur J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.398

9.  Flexible modeling improves assessment of prognostic value of C-reactive protein in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  B Gagnon; M Abrahamowicz; Y Xiao; M-E Beauchamp; N MacDonald; G Kasymjanova; H Kreisman; D Small
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Congruence Between Latent Class and K-Modes Analyses in the Identification of Oncology Patients With Distinct Symptom Experiences.

Authors:  Nikoloas Papachristou; Payam Barnaghi; Bruce A Cooper; Xiao Hu; Roma Maguire; Kathi Apostolidis; Jo Armes; Yvette P Conley; Marilyn Hammer; Stylianos Katsaragakis; Kord M Kober; Jon D Levine; Lisa McCann; Elisabeth Patiraki; Steven M Paul; Emma Ream; Fay Wright; Christine Miaskowski
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 3.612

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.