Original ArticleDifferences in Performance Status Assessment Among Palliative Care Specialists, Nurses, and Medical Oncologists

ContextThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) is one of the most commonly used assessments in oncology and palliative care (PC). However, the interobserver differences between medical oncologists and PC specialists have never been reported.ObjectivesTo determine the interobserver differences in ECOG PS assessment among PC specialists, PC nurses, and medical oncologists in patients with advanced cancer.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who had an outpatient PC consultation in 2013 and identified 278 eligible patients. We retrieved the ECOG PS scores and symptom burden assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS).ResultsPC specialists (median +0.5, P < 0.0001) and nurses (median +1.0, P < 0.0001) rated the ECOG PS significantly higher than medical oncologists. The weighted kappa values were 0.26 between PC specialists and medical oncologists and 0.61 between PC specialists and nurses. PC specialists' assessments correlated with ESAS fatigue, dyspnea, anorexia, feeling of well-being, and symptom distress score. The ECOG PS assessments by all three groups were significantly associated with survival (P < 0.001). However, patients with ECOG PS 2 and 3-4 rated by their medical oncologists had similar survival (P = 0.67). Predictors of discordance in ECOG PS assessments between PC specialists and medical oncologists were the presence of a potentially effective treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.39; 95% CI 1.09-5.23) and poor feeling of well-being (≥4) (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.34-4.21).ConclusionECOG PS assessments by PC specialists and nurses were significantly higher than those of medical oncologists. Systematic efforts to increase regular interdisciplinary communications may help to bridge this gap.