Patient-reported Performance Status Research Articles

Comparing the Ability of Physician-Reported Versus Patient-Reported Performance Status to Predict Survival in a Population-Based Cohort of Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients

AimsPerformance status is an important prognostic tool in cancer. In oncology, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) measure is commonly used. Patient-reported functional status (PRFS) is an emerging method that allows patients to provide an estimate of their function; however, there is limited information about its prognostic significance. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive validity of functional status as reported by patients and physicians in relation to the observed survival after a new cancer diagnosis. Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective, population-based study using observational data of newly diagnosed patients in Ontario, Canada. We included patients who had both PRFS and ECOG recorded on the same day during an outpatient cancer clinic visit between March 2013 and March 2018. The dataset was randomly divided into 60% training and 40% validation cohorts. One-year survival was estimated by modelling clinical characteristics with PRFS, with ECOG, and alone. ResultsIn total, 13 045 patients met the inclusion criteria. Covariates were similar at baseline for both training and validation datasets. PRFS and ECOG scores were statistically significant predictors of overall survival. Higher PRFS and ECOG scores were both associated with inferior survival, hazard ratio = 1.71 (P < 0.0001) and hazard ratio = 1.90 (P < 0.0001), respectively. Models that included either PRFS or ECOG scores outperformed the model with clinical characteristics only. C statistics were 0.836, 0.839 and 0.811, respectively. ConclusionsPRFS adds to survival modelling and is equally predictive as the ECOG scale. PRFS may be used instead of ECOG in clinical or research settings for survival estimation.

Comparing Clinician-Assessed and Patient-Reported Performance Status for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy.

Performance status (PS) is assessed during cancer treatment to determine clinical trial eligibility, appropriateness for treatment, and need for supportive care. There is rising interest for patients to report this information directly. We determined whether clinician- and patient-reported PS were equally associated with mortality and service utilization in patients with cancer. A secondary analysis was conducted using data from an radiotherapy plus chemotherapy in which 441 patients with advanced cancer and clinicians reported PS using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale. Simple kappa statistics measured agreement between clinician-reported performance status (cPS) and patient-reported performance status (pPS). Associations of cPS and pPS with emergency department (ED) and hospital visits and overall survival were evaluated via Cox regression, competing risk regression, and Fisher's exact tests. cPS and pPS correlated weakly (kappa = 0.27). Both pPS and cPS were associated with survival, ED visits, and hospitalizations, but only cPS remained associated after adjustment (survival: HR, 1.75; P < .0001). The first available cPS predicted mortality more strongly than the first available pPS (HR for death, comparing PS ≥ 1 v 0: 2.05 for cPS and 1.41 for pPS). When pPS questionnaires were repeated over time and averaged, associations with outcomes were stronger as measured by AIC model fit. Both pPS and cPS were associated with EQ-5D subcomponents (eg, 75%-77% with no usual activity deficits for PS 0, v 42%-51% for PS ≥ 1). Both clinician-reported PS and patient-reported PS provide useful information and can be considered for clinical trials and routine care.

Comparing Clinician-Assessed and Patient-Reported Performance Status for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy

Comparing Clinician-Assessed and Patient-Reported Performance Status for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy

A new measure of function in older adults with cancer

A new measure of function in older adults with cancer

Discrepancies between genitourinary cancer patients' and clinicians' characterization of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.

Patient-reported outcomes have been used to assess treatment effectiveness and actively engage patients in their disease management. This study was designed to describe the patient-reported performance status (PS) and the provider-reported PS. Patients with metastatic genitourinary cancers were recruited from a single cancer center before the initiation of a new line of treatment. PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG]), quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-General), and distress (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety and Depression) were self-reported by patients. Clinical data (eg, age, sex, diagnosis, and physician-reported ECOG PS) were extracted from medical records. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the association between PS, quality of life, and psychological symptoms. One hundred forty-five patients were enrolled (76.6% male, 70.3% White, 81.4% married, and 76.6% well educated). The median age was 67 years; 66.9% were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma, 20.0% were diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma, and 13.1% were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Clinicians more frequently classified patients' ECOG PS as 0 in comparison with the patients themselves (92.4% vs 64.1%; P = .001). Higher clinician-reported ECOG PS was associated with poorer physical and functional well-being and higher rates of depression (P < .01), whereas higher patient-reported ECOG PS was associated with worse psychosocial outcomes (P < .01). Discrepancies were noted between the patient- and provider-reported ECOG PS, with clinicians overestimating the ECOG PS in comparison with the patients themselves. This study's findings suggest that patients incorporate their social and emotional well-being into their PS score in addition to their physical well-being. This information is not immediately accessible to most clinicians from just a standard patient interview and likely accounts for the overestimation of the patients' ECOG PS by the clinicians.

Prognostic value of a patient-reported functional score versus physician-reported Karnofsky Performance Status Score in brain metastases.

IntroductionOur aim was to investigate the added prognostic value of a patient-reported functional outcome score over Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) with brain metastases.Materials and methodsThe baseline data are from a prospective cohort study involving 140 consecutive patients presenting at our institute. A patient reported performance status (PRPS) was obtained by summing the physical- and role-functioning scale scores of the EORTC QLQ C30 questionnaire. Nested cox proportional hazards models predicting survival were developed including both KPS and PRPS (full model), KPS only (KPS Model), and PRPS only (PRPS model). The incremental value of the addition of KPS or PRPS was ascertained using the likelihood ratio test, model adequacy index and integrated discrimination Improvement (IDI).ResultsPRPS was an independent and statistically significant prognostic factor and had only a moderate degree of agreement with KPS. All models showed nearly the same discrimination and calibration accuracy, but the likelihood ratio test comparing the full model to the KPS model was significant (L.R. Chi2 = 5.34, p = 0.02). Model adequacy index for the KPS model was 85% versus 95% for the PRPS model. IDI when comparing the KPS model to the full model was 0.0279, while it was 0.008 for the PRPS model versus the Full model.ConclusionsUse of patient-reported functional outcomes like PRPS can provide the same prognostic information as KPS in patients of NSCLC with brain metastases.HighlightsPatient-reported functional status (PRPS) has a moderate degree of agreement with KPS.PRPS is an independent and significant predictor of survival in brain metastases.PRPS can replace KPS without loss of prognostic information.

Patient preference for receiving information about long-term symptoms.

e21681 Background: Maintaining quality of life with minimal symptoms is an important goal of cancer treatment. We surveyed patients undergoing cancer treatment about their preferences for information about the long-term symptom burden associated with their current treatment. Methods: Patients undergoing active cancer treatment were enrolled at two large cancer centers from 1/2014 to 7/2015. At the time of enrollment patients reported their household income, employment, performance status and their agreement with the statement, “It would be useful to know the percentage of patients having persistent symptoms more than a year after getting the same treatment I am getting.” Treatment intention (curative vs. palliative) was reported by the treating oncologist. Results: 196 patients completed the survey. The mean age was 55.7 (range 20-80); 54% were female, 69% were white, and 60% were receiving palliative treatment. The majority (83%) of patients either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that it would be helpful to have information about future symptoms. In univariable analyses, this preference did not significantly differ based on patient-reported performance status, sex, age, treatment intent, race, or household income. Using a more stringent criterion to dichotomize the outcome, 59% of participants strongly agreed that it would be helpful to have information about future symptoms. Patients undergoing treatment with curative intent were significantly more likely to strongly agree (72% vs. 51%, p = 0.0035). In a multivariable analysis adjusting for age, sex, income level, employment status, and patient-reported performance status, participants undergoing curative versus palliative treatment had 3.1 times the odds (95% CI 1.47-6.65) of strongly agreeing. Conclusions: The majority of patients undergoing cancer treatment wanted to know what symptoms to expect in the future, and this was independent of patient demographics. Patients undergoing treatment with curative intent are significantly more likely to want this information than patients undergoing palliative treatment. Symptom data collected through research studies and registries should be summarized by treatment and other key predictors and made available to patients.

The relationship between health utility, quality of life, and symptom scores in Canadian patients with esophageal cancer.

149 Background: Health Utility scores (HUS) are an increasingly important tool in helping to determine the cost-effectiveness of therapies worldwide. The EQ-5D is a validated HUS questionnaire, with reference data in numerous populations. Previously, HUS in esophageal cancer (EC) were based on limited datasets, and the relationship between HUS and either quality of life (QOL, through the validated FACT-E) or esophageal-specific symptoms such as dysphagia, has not been studied. Methods: This cross-sectional survey of EC patients at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (2012-2014) assessed EQ-5D, FACT-E, a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), patient reported performance status (PRO-ECOG), and dysphagia scoring. EQ-5D scores were converted to HUS using Canadian references. Correlation analyses were performed between HUS and global FACT-E scores, global dysphagia scores, and specific esophageal symptom scores included in FACT-E. Results: Of 198 patients, median age was 67 (range 32-93) years, 76% were male, with localized (LD stage 1, 6%), regional (RD, stage II-IVA, 62%), and metastatic (MD, stage IVB, 27%) disease. Mean + SEM EQ-5D HUS was 0.80+0.01 (all patients), 0.90+0.05 (LD), 0.82+0.01 (RD), and 0.73+0.03 (MD) [p=0.03]. Mean FACT-E total score was 130, mean total FACT-G score was 80, and mean ECS score was 49. There was a strong correlation between FACT-E total scores and EQ-5D HUS (r=0.73, p&lt;0.001), and mild-to-moderate correlation between FACT-E dysphagia questions and HUS (r= 0.28-0.37; p&lt;0.001, each comparison) and between the odynophagia question and HUS (r=0.28, p&lt;0.001). A moderate correlation was observed between a non-FACT-E based global swallow score and HUS (r=0.48, p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: In this large cross-sectional study of EC patients, stage, QOL, and esophageal-specific symptoms were all associated with HUS. Additional results will be presented on the relationship of VAS, PRO-ECOG and specific FACT-E domains, with HUS and changes in questionnaire scores over time, as well as stage-specific EC reference HUS using UK and USA references. This research enhances our understanding of the factors driving EQ5D HUS in EC, thereby validating its potential usefulness in economic analyses.

Longitudinal Patient-Reported Performance Status Assessment in the Cancer Clinic Is Feasible and Prognostic

Performance status is prognostic in oncology and palliative care settings. Traditionally clinician rated, it is often inconsistently collected, recorded, and measured, thereby limiting its utility. Patient-reported strategies are increasingly used for routine symptom and quality of life assessment in the clinic, and may be useful for tracking performance status. Tablet personal computers were used to collect patient-reported reviews of systems via the Patient Care Monitor (PCM) v2.0 for 86 patients with advanced lung cancer. Relevant subscales included the PCM Impaired Performance and Impaired Ambulation scales. Trained nurse clinicians measured performance status using traditional Karnofsky and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) instruments. Correlation coefficients were used to compare performance status scales, and survival analysis was performed by Cox proportional hazards modeling. All four performance status scales demonstrated excellent internal consistency and convergent validity. Initial KPS and ECOG scores were statistically correlated with survival, whereas PCM scores showed a nonsignificant trend in this direction. Change in PCM Impaired Performance over time was statistically correlated with survival (hazard ratio = 1.62, P = .046), whereas the other three performance status measures were not statistically prognostic. Patient-reported performance status as measured by PCM v2.0 is at least as reliable as KPS or ECOG. The enhanced resolution provided by this patient-reported method allows for the detection of clinically meaningful changes in trajectory over time, potentially serving as an early-warning system to trigger clinical interventions. Further study is needed to test these findings on a larger scale.

Linking Palliative Care and Oncology Practice: Performance Status As a Common Thread

Linking Palliative Care and Oncology Practice: Performance Status As a Common Thread

The impact of ECOG performance status on quality of life symptoms in patients with advanced lung cancer

8099 Background: Performance status (PS) is a measure of a patient’s ability to function normally without rest, PS has prognostic significance in many tumor types. PS is assumed to correlate with a patient’s symptoms, but few studies have specifically evaluated symptom burden by PS. The current analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between disease symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and PS rating in patients with lung cancer. Methods: Patient data from two databases (BIOQOL and Q-score), maintained by Evanston Northwestern Healthcare,were pooled for analysis. Patients completed the FACT-L (n = 307), which is a 34-item questionnaire assessing physical, functional, and emotional aspects of QOL. Of these 34 questions, 17 reflect general physical (5), emotional (5), and lung cancer specific (7) symptoms. The prevalence of these 17 symptoms was evaluated across 5 PS categories. Responses of “quite a bit” and “very much” were designated as clinically significant. Patients’ responses to QOL questionnaires were used to compare the relationship between patient-reported PS and clinically significant disease symptoms. Results: Increasing disease-related symptoms correlate with increasing PS rating. The number of symptoms reported by patients with advanced lung cancer was greater with higher PS score (mean number of 17 specific emotional and physical symptoms: PS0 = 3.14, PS1 = 3.49, PS2 = 4.66, PS3 = 5.30, PS4 = 6.55). The number of significant symptoms increased with increasing PS (% of patients with ≥3 symptoms: PS0 = 49%, PS1 = 70%, PS2 = 76%, PS3 = 77%, PS4 = 99%). Conclusions: The incidence of clinically significant symptoms is greater in poor-PS patients than in patients that have good PS. Given the prevalence of poor PS in patients with lung cancer, research specifically designed for these patients should be encouraged, particularly with treatments that can provide symptomatic relief. No significant financial relationships to disclose.