Discrepancies between genitourinary cancer patients' and clinicians' characterization of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status

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.