Premium
Performance status agreement assessed by the patient and clinician in a rapid access lung cancer service: Can either predict completion of treatment?
Author(s) -
Collins Jemima T.,
Noble Simon,
Davies Helen E.,
Farewell Daniel,
Lester Jason F.,
Parry Diane,
Byrne Anthony
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
european journal of cancer care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.849
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1365-2354
pISSN - 0961-5423
DOI - 10.1111/ecc.13004
Subject(s) - medicine , lung cancer , performance status , karnofsky performance status , cancer , physical therapy
Clinician‐rated performance status (C‐PS) is used routinely to predict whether patients are fit enough to undergo treatment for lung cancer. However, a good proportion of those with seemingly good C‐PS do not go on to receive, let alone complete treatment. The value of C‐PS in accurately predicting this is unclear, as is the merit of evaluating patient‐rated PS (P‐PS). Objectives Our aim was to prospectively assess Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Karnofsky C‐PS and P‐PS in patients attending a rapid access lung cancer service (RALCS), the agreement between these scores, and whether any score could predict receipt and completion of multidisciplinary team (MDT)‐planned treatment. Results ECOG and Karnofsky scores were highly correlated (Spearman's rho −0.79 for C‐PS and −0.828 for P‐PS, both p < 0.001). There was poor agreement between C‐PS and P‐PS scores (kappa statistics 0.275 for ECOG and 0.172 for Karnofsky); however, clinicians did not tend to consistently under‐ or overestimate patients’ scores. ECOG P‐PS showed an association with completion of MDT‐planned treatment ( p = 0.007), but C‐PS did not. Conclusion Clinician‐rated PS was not associated with completion of MDT‐planned treatment, but there may be a role for patient‐rated PS. C‐PS and P‐PS were poorly correlated in a RALCS.