Yu Jung Kim1, David Hui2, Yi Zhang3, Ji Chan Park4, Gary Chisholm5, Janet Williams2, Eduardo Bruera6. 1. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Department of Medical Oncology, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 6. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. Electronic address: ebruera@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) is one of the most commonly used assessments in oncology and palliative care (PC). However, the interobserver differences between medical oncologists and PC specialists have never been reported. OBJECTIVES: To determine the interobserver differences in ECOG PS assessment among PC specialists, PC nurses, and medical oncologists in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who had an outpatient PC consultation in 2013 and identified 278 eligible patients. We retrieved the ECOG PS scores and symptom burden assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). RESULTS: PC specialists (median +0.5, P < 0.0001) and nurses (median +1.0, P < 0.0001) rated the ECOG PS significantly higher than medical oncologists. The weighted kappa values were 0.26 between PC specialists and medical oncologists and 0.61 between PC specialists and nurses. PC specialists' assessments correlated with ESAS fatigue, dyspnea, anorexia, feeling of well-being, and symptom distress score. The ECOG PS assessments by all three groups were significantly associated with survival (P < 0.001). However, patients with ECOG PS 2 and 3-4 rated by their medical oncologists had similar survival (P = 0.67). Predictors of discordance in ECOG PS assessments between PC specialists and medical oncologists were the presence of a potentially effective treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.39; 95% CI 1.09-5.23) and poor feeling of well-being (≥4) (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.34-4.21). CONCLUSION: ECOG PS assessments by PC specialists and nurses were significantly higher than those of medical oncologists. Systematic efforts to increase regular interdisciplinary communications may help to bridge this gap.
CONTEXT: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) is one of the most commonly used assessments in oncology and palliative care (PC). However, the interobserver differences between medical oncologists and PC specialists have never been reported. OBJECTIVES: To determine the interobserver differences in ECOG PS assessment among PC specialists, PC nurses, and medical oncologists in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who had an outpatient PC consultation in 2013 and identified 278 eligible patients. We retrieved the ECOG PS scores and symptom burden assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). RESULTS: PC specialists (median +0.5, P < 0.0001) and nurses (median +1.0, P < 0.0001) rated the ECOG PS significantly higher than medical oncologists. The weighted kappa values were 0.26 between PC specialists and medical oncologists and 0.61 between PC specialists and nurses. PC specialists' assessments correlated with ESAS fatigue, dyspnea, anorexia, feeling of well-being, and symptom distress score. The ECOG PS assessments by all three groups were significantly associated with survival (P < 0.001). However, patients with ECOG PS 2 and 3-4 rated by their medical oncologists had similar survival (P = 0.67). Predictors of discordance in ECOG PS assessments between PC specialists and medical oncologists were the presence of a potentially effective treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.39; 95% CI 1.09-5.23) and poor feeling of well-being (≥4) (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.34-4.21). CONCLUSION: ECOG PS assessments by PC specialists and nurses were significantly higher than those of medical oncologists. Systematic efforts to increase regular interdisciplinary communications may help to bridge this gap.
Authors: Christoph Minichsdorfer; Andreas Gleiss; Marie-Bernadette Aretin; Manuela Schmidinger; Thorsten Fuereder Journal: Ann Med Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 5.348
Authors: Austin Lammers; Christopher G Slatore; Erik K Fromme; Kelly C Vranas; Donald R Sullivan Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Anne Katrin Berger; Georg Martin Haag; Martin Ehmann; Anne Byl; Dirk Jäger; Christoph Springfeld Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 3.067