Thomas M Atkinson1, Charissa F Andreotti2, Kailey E Roberts2, Rebecca M Saracino2, Marisol Hernandez2, Ethan Basch3. 1. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, USA. atkinsot@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, USA. 3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The process of assessing patient symptoms and functionality using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and functional performance status (FPS) is an essential aspect of patient-centered oncology research and care. However, PRO and FPS measures are often employed separately or inconsistently combined. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the level of association between PRO and FPS measures to determine their differential or combined utility. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using five databases (1966 to February 2014) to identify studies that described an association between PRO and FPS. Studies were excluded if they were non-cancer specific, did not include adults aged 18 or older, or were review articles. Publications were selected for review by consensus among two authors, with a third author arbitrating as needed. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria. FPS was primarily assessed by clinicians using the ECOG Performance Status or Karnofsky Performance Status measures. PROs were captured using a variety of measures, with numerous domains assessed (e.g., pain, fatigue, and general health status). Concordance between PROs and FPS measures was widely variable, falling in the low to moderate range (0.09-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Despite consistency in the method of capture of PROs or FPS, domain capture varied considerably across reviewed studies. Irrespective of the method of capturing PROs or FPS, the quantified level of association between these two areas was moderate at best, providing evidence that FPS and PRO assessments offer unique information to assist clinicians in their decision-making.
PURPOSE: The process of assessing patient symptoms and functionality using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and functional performance status (FPS) is an essential aspect of patient-centered oncology research and care. However, PRO and FPS measures are often employed separately or inconsistently combined. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the level of association between PRO and FPS measures to determine their differential or combined utility. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using five databases (1966 to February 2014) to identify studies that described an association between PRO and FPS. Studies were excluded if they were non-cancer specific, did not include adults aged 18 or older, or were review articles. Publications were selected for review by consensus among two authors, with a third author arbitrating as needed. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria. FPS was primarily assessed by clinicians using the ECOG Performance Status or Karnofsky Performance Status measures. PROs were captured using a variety of measures, with numerous domains assessed (e.g., pain, fatigue, and general health status). Concordance between PROs and FPS measures was widely variable, falling in the low to moderate range (0.09-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Despite consistency in the method of capture of PROs or FPS, domain capture varied considerably across reviewed studies. Irrespective of the method of capturing PROs or FPS, the quantified level of association between these two areas was moderate at best, providing evidence that FPS and PRO assessments offer unique information to assist clinicians in their decision-making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health status; Karnofsky performance status; Neoplasms; Patient outcome assessment
Authors: Jennifer L Hay; Thomas M Atkinson; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Tito R Mendoza; Gordon Willis; Lori M Minasian; Steven B Clauser; Andrea Denicoff; Ann O'Mara; Alice Chen; Antonia V Bennett; Diane B Paul; Joshua Gagne; Lauren Rogak; Laura Sit; Vish Viswanath; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nicole L Stout; Alix Sleight; Denise Pfeiffer; Mary Lou Galantino; Bianca deSouza Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J C Kuo; D M Graham; A Salvarrey; F Kassam; L W Le; F A Shepherd; R Burkes; P J Hollen; R J Gralla; N B Leighl Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: E Gabriela Chiorean; Daniel Von Hoff; Yin Wan; Sandra Margunato-Debay; Marc Botteman; David Goldstein Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Josep Tabernero; Eric Van Cutsem; Atsushi Ohtsu; Nadia Amellal; Stéphanie Cadour; Ronan Fougeray; Benjamin Haffemayer; Robert J Mayer Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2017-11-23