Quality of life and performance status in patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors

Velanovich, Vic; Wollner, Ira

doi:10.1007/s10147-011-0200-z

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A key finding is that overall QOL is different from performance status. This result has been demonstrated previously in individual studies [ 3 , 4 , 26 ], but was demonstrated here to be consistent across study populations. Similarly, the relationship between tumor response in cancer patients and QOL is weak, as reported previously in a study of 989 metastatic colorectal cancer [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scales

Singh

Satele²,

Pattabasavaiah³

et al. 2014

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSingle-item assessments have been the most often-used measures in National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer control clinical trials, but normative data are not available. Our objective was to examine the normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scale for overall quality of life (QOL).MethodsWe analyzed baseline data from 36 clinical trials and 6 observational studies with various populations, including healthy volunteers, cancer trial patients (patients with advanced incurable cancer or patients receiving treatment with curative intent) and hospice patients as well as their caregivers. The overall QOL LASA was rated 0 (as bad as it can be) to 10 (as good as it can be). We calculated the summary statistics and the proportion of patients reporting a clinically meaningful deficit (CMD) of a score equal to 5 or less on the 0–10 scale.ResultsIn total, for the collective sample of 9,295 individuals, the average overall QOL reported was 7.39 (SD = 2.11) with a markedly skewed distribution with roughly 17% reporting a score of 5 or below indicating a clinically significant deficit in overall QOL. Hospice patients report a much worse average score of 5.7 upon entry to hospice; hospice caregivers average 7.4. Cancer patients vary within these two extremes with most patients averaging in the 7’s on the 0–10 scale (range, 0 to 10 p-value < 0.0001). Men and women’s QOL distributions were virtually identical (with average of 7.6 vs. 7.5, p-value = 0.046). Overall QOL was weakly related to performance status with a Spearman correlation coefficient of −0.29 (p-value < 0.0001). Overall QOL was related to tumor response (p-value = 0.0094), i.e. patients with a full or partial response reported a CMD in 11.4% of cases compared to 14.4% among those with stable disease and 18.5% among those with disease progression. Data missingness was high for performance status and tumor response associations.ConclusionsThis study provides the normative data for cancer patients and healthy volunteers for overall QOL using the LASA. These can serve as benchmarks for future studies and inform clinical practice decision-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0187-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scales

Singh

Satele²,

Pattabasavaiah³

et al. 2014

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patient well-being is also closely linked with caregiver well-being, 15, 16 particularly as patient performance status and quality of life decline over time, 17 and caregiver distress limits optimal care. 18 For family caregivers, the cumulative effects of physical, emotional, social, and economic stress, often results in their own physical illness, exacerbation of co-morbid conditions, and a greater risk of their own mortality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Physical Health of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer and the Psychological Health of Their Family Caregivers When Newly Enrolled in Hospice

Sherman

McMillan

2015

Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Over half of the studies ( k =10) used ECOG PS to assess FPS [15–24], with four using KPS [5, 25–27], one using a modified version of KPS known as the Palliative Performance Status (PPS; [28]) [29], one making use of the patient-reported National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index (NFKSI) [30], one using the patient-reported Performance Status Scale–Head and Neck Cancer (PSS-HNC; [31]) [32], and one cooperative group study that used a variety of FPS measures, including ECOG PS and KPS [33]. Basch and colleagues [5], in addition to using KPS to assess patient FPS, administered a patient-reported version of KPS scaled from 0 to 100.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The level of association between functional performance status measures and patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review

Atkinson

Andreotti

Roberts

et al. 2015

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The process of assessing patient symptoms and functionality using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and functional performance status (FPS) is an essential aspect of patient-centered oncology research and care. However, PRO and FPS measures are often employed separately or inconsistently combined. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the level of association between PRO and FPS measures to determine their differential or combined utility. Methods A systematic search was conducted using five databases (1966 to February 2014) to identify studies that described an association between PRO and FPS. Studies were excluded if they were non-cancer specific, did not include adults aged 18 or older, or were review articles. Publications were selected for review by consensus among two authors, with a third author arbitrating as needed. Results A total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria. FPS was primarily assessed by clinicians using the ECOG Performance Status or Karnofsky Performance Status measures. PROs were captured using a variety of measures, with numerous domains assessed (e.g., pain, fatigue, and general health status). Concordance between PROs and FPS measures was widely variable, falling in the low to moderate range (0.09–0.72). Conclusions Despite consistency in the method of capture of PROs or FPS, domain capture varied considerably across reviewed studies. Irrespective of the method of capturing PROs or FPS, the quantified level of association between these two areas was moderate at best, providing evidence that FPS and PRO assessments offer unique information to assist clinicians in their decision-making.

show abstract

Quality of life and performance status in patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

Normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scales

Normative data and clinically significant effect sizes for single-item numerical linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) scales

The Physical Health of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer and the Psychological Health of Their Family Caregivers When Newly Enrolled in Hospice

The level of association between functional performance status measures and patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About