Literature DB >> 28718335

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

Alexis D Leal1, Cristine Allmer2, Matthew J Maurer2, Tait D Shanafelt3, James R Cerhan4, Brian K Link5, Carrie A Thompson3.   

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the incidence of inter-observer variability in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) rating between patients with leukemia and lymphoma and their physicians. ECOG PS was assessed at diagnosis by patients and their physicians and stratified by disease subtype, gender, age, disease stage and education. Association between patient- and physician-rated PS and overall survival (OS) was stratified by subtype and prognostic risk score. Overall, 65% of patients and physicians rated PS the same. Age, disease stage and disease subtype were significant predictors of PS disagreement. PS was a significant predictor of OS irrespective of assessment by patients or physicians across all subtypes except those with Hodgkin lymphoma. These findings suggest the need for physicians to better communicate with patients when determining PS, as PS is a strong predictor of survival and is critical in treatment decisions, including determining fitness for cancer treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Performance status; cancer; inter-observer agreement; leukemia; lymphoma; overall survival

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28718335      PMCID: PMC5901757          DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2017.1347930

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma        ISSN: 1026-8022


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Geriatric assessment-identified deficits in older cancer patients with normal performance status.

Authors:  Trevor A Jolly; Allison M Deal; Kirsten A Nyrop; Grant R Williams; Mackenzi Pergolotti; William A Wood; Shani M Alston; Brittaney-Belle E Gordon; Samara A Dixon; Susan G Moore; W Chris Taylor; Michael Messino; Hyman B Muss
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-03-12

4.  The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting.

Authors:  V Mor; L Laliberte; J N Morris; M Wiemann
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1984-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Should patient-rated performance status affect treatment decisions in advanced lung cancer?

Authors:  Esther Dajczman; Goulnar Kasymjanova; Harvey Kreisman; Nelda Swinton; Carmela Pepe; David Small
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 15.609

6.  Patient-physician disagreement regarding performance status is associated with worse survivorship in patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  Ian D Schnadig; Erik K Fromme; Charles L Loprinzi; Jeff A Sloan; Motomi Mori; Hong Li; Tomasz M Beer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Prospective evaluation of prognostic variables from patient-completed questionnaires. North Central Cancer Treatment Group.

Authors:  C L Loprinzi; J A Laurie; H S Wieand; J E Krook; P J Novotny; J W Kugler; J Bartel; M Law; M Bateman; N E Klatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 44.544

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

Authors:  M Ando; Y Ando; Y Hasegawa; K Shimokata; H Minami; K Wakai; Y Ohno; S Sakai
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2001-11-30       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Can oncologists detect distress in their out-patients and how satisfied are they with their performance during bad news consultations?

Authors:  S Ford; L Fallowfield; S Lewis
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?

Authors:  S P Blagden; S C Charman; L D Sharples; L R A Magee; D Gilligan
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-09-15       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  3 in total

1.  Quality of life at diagnosis predicts overall survival in patients with aggressive lymphoma.

Authors:  Carrie A Thompson; Kathleen J Yost; Matthew J Maurer; Cristine Allmer; Umar Farooq; Thomas M Habermann; David J Inwards; William R Macon; Brian K Link; Allison C Rosenthal; James R Cerhan
Journal:  Hematol Oncol       Date:  2018-06-03       Impact factor: 5.271

2.  The impact of skeletal muscle mass on survival outcome in biliary tract cancer patients.

Authors:  Panita Limpawattana; Daris Theerakulpisut; Kosin Wirasorn; Aumkhae Sookprasert; Narong Khuntikeo; Jarin Chindaprasirt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Integration of a Geriatric Assessment With Intervention in the Care of Older Adults With Hematologic Malignancies.

Authors:  Sarah A Wall; Ying Huang; Ashleigh Keiter; Allesia Funderburg; Colin Kloock; Nicholas Yuhasz; Tanya R Gure; Edmund Folefac; Erin Stevens; Carolyn J Presley; Nicole O Williams; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Michelle J Naughton; Ashley E Rosko
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 5.738

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.