Comparing Clinician-Assessed and Patient-Reported Performance Status for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: Both clinician-reported PS and patient-reported PS provide useful information and can be considered for clinical trials and routine care
