Cargando…

Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?

Oncologists traditionally assess their patients' ECOG performance status (PS), and few studies have evaluated the accuracy of these assessments. In this study, 101 patients attending a rapid access clinic at Papworth Hospital with a diagnosis of lung cancer were asked to assess their own ECOG P...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blagden, S P, Charman, S C, Sharples, L D, Magee, L R A, Gilligan, D
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12966419
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601231
_version_ 1782154760560836608
author Blagden, S P
Charman, S C
Sharples, L D
Magee, L R A
Gilligan, D
author_facet Blagden, S P
Charman, S C
Sharples, L D
Magee, L R A
Gilligan, D
author_sort Blagden, S P
collection PubMed
description Oncologists traditionally assess their patients' ECOG performance status (PS), and few studies have evaluated the accuracy of these assessments. In this study, 101 patients attending a rapid access clinic at Papworth Hospital with a diagnosis of lung cancer were asked to assess their own ECOG PS score on a scale between 0 and 4. Patients' scores were compared to the PS assessment of them made by their oncologists. Of 98 patients with primary non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), weighted κ statistics showed PS score agreement between patient and oncologist of 0.45. Both patient- and oncologist-assessed scores reflected survival duration (in NSCLC and SCLC) as well as disease stage (in NSCLC), with oncologist-assessed scores being only marginally more predictive of survival. There was no sex difference in patient assessment of PS scores, but oncologists scored female patients more pessimistically than males. This study showed that, with few exceptions, patients and oncologists assessed PS scores similarly. Although oncologists should continue to score PS objectively, it may benefit their clinical practice to involve their patients in these assessments.
format Text
id pubmed-2376959
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-23769592009-09-10 Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree? Blagden, S P Charman, S C Sharples, L D Magee, L R A Gilligan, D Br J Cancer Clinical Oncologists traditionally assess their patients' ECOG performance status (PS), and few studies have evaluated the accuracy of these assessments. In this study, 101 patients attending a rapid access clinic at Papworth Hospital with a diagnosis of lung cancer were asked to assess their own ECOG PS score on a scale between 0 and 4. Patients' scores were compared to the PS assessment of them made by their oncologists. Of 98 patients with primary non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), weighted κ statistics showed PS score agreement between patient and oncologist of 0.45. Both patient- and oncologist-assessed scores reflected survival duration (in NSCLC and SCLC) as well as disease stage (in NSCLC), with oncologist-assessed scores being only marginally more predictive of survival. There was no sex difference in patient assessment of PS scores, but oncologists scored female patients more pessimistically than males. This study showed that, with few exceptions, patients and oncologists assessed PS scores similarly. Although oncologists should continue to score PS objectively, it may benefit their clinical practice to involve their patients in these assessments. Nature Publishing Group 2003-09-15 2003-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC2376959/ /pubmed/12966419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601231 Text en Copyright © 2003 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Clinical
Blagden, S P
Charman, S C
Sharples, L D
Magee, L R A
Gilligan, D
Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?
title Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?
title_full Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?
title_fullStr Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?
title_full_unstemmed Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?
title_short Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?
title_sort performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree?
topic Clinical
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12966419
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601231
work_keys_str_mv AT blagdensp performancestatusscoredopatientsandtheironcologistsagree
AT charmansc performancestatusscoredopatientsandtheironcologistsagree
AT sharplesld performancestatusscoredopatientsandtheironcologistsagree
AT mageelra performancestatusscoredopatientsandtheironcologistsagree
AT gilligand performancestatusscoredopatientsandtheironcologistsagree