Abstract
Accuracy in the assessment of performance status by oncologists has not been well evaluated. We investigated possible discrepancies in the assessment of performance status among patients, nurses, and oncologists, and evaluated the prognostic importance of each assessment. Two hundred and six inpatients with inoperable, advanced non-small cell lung cancer were investigated prospectively. Weighted Kappa statistics for inter-observer agreement were 0.53 between oncologists and patients and 0.63 between oncologists and nurses. There was a significant difference among the assessments by the three groups (P < 0.001). Oncologists gave the healthiest performance status assessment, nurses an intermediate assessment, and patients the poorest. When included separately in the Cox model, the assessment by each group was significantly correlated with survival. However, the assessment by the patients themselves failed to distinguish survival of patients with performance status 1 and 2. Among the three models including patient-, nurse-, and oncologist-assessed PS, that including oncologist-assessed PS best fitted to the observed survival data. These results showed that the assessment by the patients themselves is different from those by the nurses and the oncologists and provided additional support for the use of the assessment by oncologists in clinical oncology.