Abstract
Accuracy in the assessment of performance status by oncologists has not been well evaluated. We investigated possible discrepancies in the assessment of performance status among patients, nurses, and oncologists, and evaluated the prognostic importance of each assessment. Two hundred and six inpatients with inoperable, advanced non-small cell lung cancer were investigated prospectively. Weighted Kappa statistics for inter-observer agreement were 0.53 between oncologists and patients and 0.63 between oncologists and nurses. There was a significant difference among the assessments by the three groups (P < 0.001). Oncologists gave the healthiest performance status assessment, nurses an intermediate assessment, and patients the poorest. When included separately in the Cox model, the assessment by each group was significantly correlated with survival. However, the assessment by the patients themselves failed to distinguish survival of patients with performance status 1 and 2. Among the three models including patient-, nurse-, and oncologist-assessed PS, that including oncologist-assessed PS best fitted to the observed survival data. These results showed that the assessment by the patients themselves is different from those by the nurses and the oncologists and provided additional support for the use of the assessment by oncologists in clinical oncology. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Change history
16 November 2011
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Aisner J, Cirrincione C, Perloff M, Perry M, Budman D, Abrams J, Panasci L, Muss H, Citron M and Holland J (1995) Combination chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent carcinoma of the breast–a randomized phase III trial comparing CAF versus VATH versus VATH alternating with CMFVP: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 8281. J Clin Oncol 13: 1443–1452
Bonomi P, Gale M, Rowland K, Taylor IVSG, Purl S, Reddy S, Lee MS, Phillips A, Kittle CF, Warren W and Faber LP (1991) Pre-treatment prognostic factors in stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving combined modality treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 20: 247–252
Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T and Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305: 160–164
Breslow NE and Day NE (1980) Unconditional logistic regression for large strata. In: The Analysis of Case-control Studies, Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, vol. 1, Davis W (ed.) pp 192–247, International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon
Cella D, Fairclough DL, Bonomi PB, Kim K and Johnson D (1997) Quality of life in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results from eastern cooperative oncology group study E5592. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16: 2a
Coates A, Gebski V, Signorini D, Murray P, McNeil D, Byrne M and Forbes JF (1992) Prognostic value of quality-of-life scores during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. Australian New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 10: 1833–1838
Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20: 37–46
Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scale disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70: 213–220
Conill C, Verger E and Salamero M (1990) Performance status assessment in cancer patients. Cancer 65: 1864–1866
Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life-tables (with discussions). J R Stat Soc B 34: 187–220
Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Bjordal K and Kaasa S (1998) Health-related quality of life in the general Norwegian population assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire: the QLQ = C30 (+ 3). J Clin Oncol 16: 1188–1196
Hutchinson TA, Boyd NF, Feinstein AR, Gonda A, Hollomby D and Rowat B (1979) Scientific problems in clinical scales, as demonstrated in the Karnofsky index of performance status. J Chronic Dis 32: 661–666
Ihde DC (1992) Chemotherapy of lung cancer. N Engl J Med 327: 1434–1441
Jenkinson C, Coulter A and Wright L (1993) Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 306: 1437–1440
Karnofsky DA, Ableman WH, Craver LF and Burchenal JH (1948) The use of nitrogen mustard in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer 1: 634–656
Loprinzi CL, Laurie JA, Wieand HS, Krook JE, Novotny PJ, Kugler JW, Bartel J, Law M, Bateman M, Klatt NE, Dose AM, Etzell PS, Nelimark RA, Mailliard JA and Moertel CG for the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (1994) Prospective evaluation of prognostic variables from patient-completed questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 12: 601–607
Lund B, Williamson P, van Houwelingen HC and Neijt JP (1990) Comparison of the predictive power of different prognostic indices for overall survival in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 50: 4626–4629
Mountain CF (1997) Revisions in the International System for Staging Lung Cancer. Chest 111: 1710–1717
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET and Carbone PP (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5: 649–655
Osborne ML, Vollmer WM, Linton KL and Buist AS (1998) Characteristics of patients with asthma within a large HMO: a comparison by age and gender. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 157: 123–128
Osoba D (1994) Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality of life in oncology. J Clin Oncol 12: 608–616
Osterlind K and Andersen PK (1986) Prognostic factors in small cell lung cancer: multivariate model based on 778 patients treated with chemotherapy with or without irradiation. Cancer Res 46: 4189–4194
Paesmans M, Sculier JP, Libert P, Bureau G, Dabouis G, Thiriaux J, Michel J, Van Cutsem O, Sergysels R, Mommen P and Klastersky J for the European Lung Cancer Working Party (1995) Prognostic factors for survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: univariate and multivariate analyses including recursive partitioning and amalgamation algorithms in 1,052 patients. J Clin Oncol 13: 1221–1230
Presant CA (1984) Quality of life in cancer patients. Who measures what?. Am J Clin Oncol 7: 571–573
Roila F, Lupattelli M, Sassi M, Basurto C, Bracarda S, Picciafuoco M, Boschetti E, Milella G, Ballatori E, Tonato M and Favero AD (1991) Intra and interobserver variability in cancer patients’ performance status assessed according to Karnofsky and ECOG scales. Ann Oncol 2: 437–439
Ruckdeschel JC, Finkelstein DM, Ettinger DS, Creech RH, Mason BA, Joss RA and Vogl S (1986) A randomized trial of the four most active regimens for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 4: 14–22
Schag CC, Heinrich RL and Ganz PA (1984) Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2: 187–193
Shepherd FA (1994) Treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 21: S7-7–S7-18
Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, Drinkwater J and Gregory WM (1988) Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?. Br J Cancer 57: 109–112
Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MA, Detmar SB, Wever LD and Schornagel JH (1999) Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses. Br J Cancer 81: 87–94
Sørensen JB, Klee M, Palshof T and Hansen HH (1993) Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. Br J Cancer 67: 773–775
Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, Chi M and Purnell C (1999) Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 7: 332–335
Yates JW, Chalmer B and McKegney FP (1980) Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky performance status. Cancer 45: 2220–2224
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Ando, M., Ando, Y., Hasegawa, Y. et al. Prognostic value of performance status assessed by patients themselves, nurses, and oncologists in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 85, 1634–1639 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2001.2162
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2001.2162
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Pan-cancer analyses of the associations between 109 pre-existing conditions and cancer treatment patterns across 19 adult cancers
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
Age-related differences in the occurrence, severity, and distress of symptoms in older patients at the initiation of chemotherapy
BMC Geriatrics (2023)
-
Improving the performance status in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with chemotherapy (ImPACt trial): a phase 2 study
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology (2023)
-
The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on supportive care for oral mucositis: current concepts and practice
Supportive Care in Cancer (2021)
-
Poor performance status and brain metastases treatment: who may benefit from the stereotactic radiotherapy?
Journal of Neuro-Oncology (2021)