Discrepancies between genitourinary cancer patients' and clinicians' characterization of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status
Abstract
Background: 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.Methods: 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.Results: 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).Conclusions: 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.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Quality of Life, Overall Survival, and Costs of Cancer Drugs Approved Based on Surrogate EndpointsJAMA Internal Medicine, 2017
- Patient-Reported Outcomes — Harnessing Patients’ Voices to Improve Clinical CareNew England Journal of Medicine, 2017
- Development of the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2014
- Toward Patient-Centered Drug Development in OncologyNew England Journal of Medicine, 2013
- The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Adverse Symptom Event Reporting by Patients vs Clinicians: Relationships With Clinical OutcomesJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009
- Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based studyThe Lancet Oncology, 2006
- How Accurate Is Clinician Reporting of Chemotherapy Adverse Effects? A Comparison With Patient-Reported Symptoms From the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1993
- Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology GroupAmerican Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1982