Quality of life measurements of speech in the head and neck cancer patient population

Funk, Gerry F.; Tomblin, J. Bruce; Hoffman, Henry T.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0347(199905)21:3<229::aid-hed8>3.0.co;2-f

Cited by 22 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This included all three studies that utilized a patient-reported assessment of FPS [5, 21, 32]. Five studies made use of PRO measures to successfully differentiate between various levels of FPS.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%