The Functionality Assessment Flowchart (FAF): a new simple and reliable method to measure performance status with a high percentage of agreement between observers

Carlos Eduardo Paiva, Felipe Augusto Ferreira Siquelli, Henrique Amorim Santos, Marina Moreira Costa, Daniella Ramone Massaro, Domício Carvalho Lacerda, João Soares Nunes, Cristiano de Pádua Souza, Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva, Carlos Eduardo Paiva, Felipe Augusto Ferreira Siquelli, Henrique Amorim Santos, Marina Moreira Costa, Daniella Ramone Massaro, Domício Carvalho Lacerda, João Soares Nunes, Cristiano de Pádua Souza, Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva

Abstract

Background: Performance status (PS) assessment is an integral part of the decision-making process in cancer care. Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS are the most widely used tools. In some studies, the absolute agreement rate of these tools between observers has been moderate to low. The present study aimed to evaluate the inter-observer reliability and construct validity of the new Functionality Assessment Flowchart (FAF) and compare it with ECOG PS and KPS in a sample of cancer patients.

Methods: The patients were recruited by convenience from the waiting rooms of the Breast and Gynecology Ambulatory in a cross-sectional study. Two trained medical students (observer A) and five medical oncologists (observers B) independently rated women according to the ECOG PS, KPS and FAF. After the determining the PS scores, observer A administered the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) questionnaire to the participants. The agreements between observers A and B were investigated using the absolute agreement rate (%), weighted and unweighted kappa and Spearman's correlation test. For construct validity, the PS scores were correlated with functional and fatigue scores by performing correlation analysis.

Results: Eighty women with a median age of 57 years were included in the study (86% accrual rate). Among these women, 39 (48.8%) had advanced cancer. The overall absolute agreement rate between observers was 49.4% for KPS, 67% for ECOG PS, and 78.2% for FAF. When using unweighted kappa values, the inter-observer reliability was "fair", "moderate" and "substantial" for KPS, ECOG PS and FAF, respectively. However, when using weighted kappa statistics, "substantial" agreement was observed for KPS and ECOG PS and "nearly perfect" agreement was observed for FAF. All of the PS scales correlated very well with the functional and fatigue scores.

Conclusions: We present a new instrument with moderate to high inter-observer agreement and adequate construct validity to measure PS in cancer patients.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
English version of Functionality Assessment Flowchart (FAF). The questions are shown inside the blue squares. Responses are driven according to the arrow direction as a flowchart. Final evaluation of performance status is shown in red numbers as percentage values

References

    1. Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, Chi M, Purnell C. Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 1999;7:332–5. doi: 10.1007/s005200050271.
    1. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2:187–93.
    1. Péus D, Newcomb N, Hofer S. Appraisal of the Karnofsky Performance Status and proposal of a simple algorithmic system for its evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:72. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-72.
    1. Karnofsky D, Burchenal J. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod C, editor. Eval Chemother agents. New York: Columbia University Press; 1949. pp. 191–205.
    1. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649–55. doi: 10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014.
    1. Verger E, Salamero M, Conill C. Can Karnofsky performance status be transformed to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scoring scale and vice versa? Eur J Cancer. 1992;28A:1328–30. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(92)90510-9.
    1. Anderson F, Downing GM, Hill J, Casorso L, Lerch N. Palliative performance scale (PPS): a new tool. J Palliat Care. 1996;12:5–11.
    1. Zimmermann C, Burman D, Bandukwala S, Seccareccia D, Kaya E, Bryson J, et al. Nurse and physician inter-rater agreement of three performance status measures in palliative care outpatients. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:609–16. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0700-9.
    1. Myers J, Gardiner K, Harris K, Lilien T, Bennett M, Chow E, et al. Evaluating correlation and interrater reliability for four performance scales in the palliative care setting. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;39:250–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.06.013.
    1. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570–9.
    1. Ishikawa NM, Thuler LCS, Giglio AG, Baldotto CS, de Andrade CJ, Derchain SF. Validation of the Portuguese version of functional assessment of cancer therapy-fatigue (FACT-F) in Brazilian cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:481–90. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0697-0.
    1. Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, Blendowski C, Kaplan E. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13:63–74. doi: 10.1016/S0885-3924(96)00274-6.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Sørensen JB, Klee M, Palshof T, Hansen HH. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. Br J Cancer. 1993;67:773–5. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1993.140.
    1. Conill C, Verger E, Salamero M. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. Cancer. 1990;65:1864–6. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900415)65:8<1864::AID-CNCR2820650832>;2-U.
    1. Grieco A, Long CJ. Investigation of the Karnofsky Performance Status as a measure of quality of life. Health Psychol. 1984;3:129–42. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.3.2.129.
    1. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005;85:257–68.
    1. Broderick JM, Ryan J, O’Donnell DM, Hussey J. A guide to assessing physical activity using accelerometry in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:1121–30. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-2102-2.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi