Patients, caregivers, and clinicians differ in performance status ratings: Implications for pediatric cancer clinical trials

Background The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is often used to determine a child's performance status for cancer clinical trial eligibility. Differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings and their associations with child‐reported functioning have not been evaluated. Methods Chi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer 2021-10, Vol.127 (19), p.3664-3670
Hauptverfasser: Maurer, Scott H., Hinds, Pamela S., Reeve, Bryce B., Mack, Jennifer W., McFatrich, Molly, Lin, Li, Withycombe, Janice S., Jacobs, Shana S., Baker, Justin N., Castellino, Sharon M., Freyer, David R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3670
container_issue 19
container_start_page 3664
container_title Cancer
container_volume 127
creator Maurer, Scott H.
Hinds, Pamela S.
Reeve, Bryce B.
Mack, Jennifer W.
McFatrich, Molly
Lin, Li
Withycombe, Janice S.
Jacobs, Shana S.
Baker, Justin N.
Castellino, Sharon M.
Freyer, David R.
description Background The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is often used to determine a child's performance status for cancer clinical trial eligibility. Differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings and their associations with child‐reported functioning have not been evaluated. Methods Children aged 7 to 18 years who were receiving cancer treatment and their caregivers were recruited from 9 pediatric cancer centers. Caregivers and clinicians reported LPPS scores, and children completed Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatric functioning and symptom measures before treatment (time 1 [T1]) and after treatment (time 2 [T2]). t tests and mixed‐linear models were used to assess differences in caregiver and clinician LPPS scores; polyserial correlations quantified associations between PROMIS and LPPS scores. Results Of 482 children, 281 had matched caregiver‐ and clinician‐reported LPPS T1/T2 scores. Caregivers rated children significantly worse on the LPPS than clinicians at both T1 (mean, 73.3 vs 87.4; P < .01) and T2 (mean, 67.9 vs 83.1; P < .01). These differences were not related to a child's age (P = .89), diagnosis (P = .17), or sex (P = .64) or to the time point (P = .45). Small to moderate associations existed between caregiver‐ and clinician‐reported LPPS ratings and child‐reported PROMIS scores for mobility (caregiver T1/T2 r = 0.51/0.45; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = 0.40/0.35; P < .01), fatigue (caregiver T1/T2 r = –0.46/–0.37; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = –0.26/–0.27; P < .01), and pain interference (caregiver T1/T2 r = –0.32/–0.30; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = –0.17/–0.31; P < .01). Caregivers and clinicians assigned significantly lower LPPS scores at T2 (caregiver Δ = –5.37; P < .01; clinician Δ = –4.20; P < .01), whereas child‐reported PROMIS scores were clinically stable. Conclusions Significant differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings of child performance were sustained over time; their associations with child reports were predominantly small to moderate. These data suggest that clinician‐reported LPPS ratings by themselves are inadequate for determining clinical trial eligibility and should be supplemented by appropriate measures of a child's functional status reflecting the child and caregiver perspectives. The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is commonly used by clinicians for determining eligibility for pediatric cancer clinical trials. In this prospective cohort study of children
doi_str_mv 10.1002/cncr.33740
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8419065</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2568602679</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4480-bb33bd72ed8aa1635c82960389cb7131d305e2df12fc890485d1c84a7384e8873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9rFTEQgINY7LN66R8gAS9FujW_Nsl6EMrD2kKpIgq9hWySfabsZl-T3Uqhf3ynvmexHjxNJvnmYyaD0D4lR5QQ9t4ll484V4I8QwtKGlURKthztCCE6KoW_HIXvSzlClLFav4C7XJBG9lItkB3X-0UQ5rKIXY2h1W8CRnONnns-piiizYV7GPXhYxjwuuQuzEPNrmAy2SnueAMhrQqH_DZsO6jg2yEEqAA9tFOOTpwQ0HeKm2P4dL25RXa6SCE19u4h36cfPq-PK3Ov3w-Wx6fV04ITaq25bz1igWvraWS106zRhKuG9cqyqnnpA7Md5R1TjdE6NpTp4VVXIugteJ76OPGu57bIXgH82bbm3WOg823ZrTRPH1J8adZjTdGwz8RWYPgYCvI4_UcymSGWFzoe5vCOBfDaqFq1jDJAX37D3o1zjnBeEBJLQmTqgHq3YZyeSwlh-6xGUrMw1LNw1LN76UC_Obv9h_RP1sEgG6AX7EPt_9RmeXF8ttGeg96R67Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2568602679</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patients, caregivers, and clinicians differ in performance status ratings: Implications for pediatric cancer clinical trials</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Maurer, Scott H. ; Hinds, Pamela S. ; Reeve, Bryce B. ; Mack, Jennifer W. ; McFatrich, Molly ; Lin, Li ; Withycombe, Janice S. ; Jacobs, Shana S. ; Baker, Justin N. ; Castellino, Sharon M. ; Freyer, David R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Scott H. ; Hinds, Pamela S. ; Reeve, Bryce B. ; Mack, Jennifer W. ; McFatrich, Molly ; Lin, Li ; Withycombe, Janice S. ; Jacobs, Shana S. ; Baker, Justin N. ; Castellino, Sharon M. ; Freyer, David R.</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Background The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is often used to determine a child's performance status for cancer clinical trial eligibility. Differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings and their associations with child‐reported functioning have not been evaluated. Methods Children aged 7 to 18 years who were receiving cancer treatment and their caregivers were recruited from 9 pediatric cancer centers. Caregivers and clinicians reported LPPS scores, and children completed Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatric functioning and symptom measures before treatment (time 1 [T1]) and after treatment (time 2 [T2]). t tests and mixed‐linear models were used to assess differences in caregiver and clinician LPPS scores; polyserial correlations quantified associations between PROMIS and LPPS scores. Results Of 482 children, 281 had matched caregiver‐ and clinician‐reported LPPS T1/T2 scores. Caregivers rated children significantly worse on the LPPS than clinicians at both T1 (mean, 73.3 vs 87.4; P < .01) and T2 (mean, 67.9 vs 83.1; P < .01). These differences were not related to a child's age (P = .89), diagnosis (P = .17), or sex (P = .64) or to the time point (P = .45). Small to moderate associations existed between caregiver‐ and clinician‐reported LPPS ratings and child‐reported PROMIS scores for mobility (caregiver T1/T2 r = 0.51/0.45; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = 0.40/0.35; P < .01), fatigue (caregiver T1/T2 r = –0.46/–0.37; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = –0.26/–0.27; P < .01), and pain interference (caregiver T1/T2 r = –0.32/–0.30; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = –0.17/–0.31; P < .01). Caregivers and clinicians assigned significantly lower LPPS scores at T2 (caregiver Δ = –5.37; P < .01; clinician Δ = –4.20; P < .01), whereas child‐reported PROMIS scores were clinically stable. Conclusions Significant differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings of child performance were sustained over time; their associations with child reports were predominantly small to moderate. These data suggest that clinician‐reported LPPS ratings by themselves are inadequate for determining clinical trial eligibility and should be supplemented by appropriate measures of a child's functional status reflecting the child and caregiver perspectives. The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is commonly used by clinicians for determining eligibility for pediatric cancer clinical trials. In this prospective cohort study of children receiving cancer treatment, LPPS ratings differ between clinicians and caregivers and are poorly correlated with child reports. This challenges the use of the LPPS for that purpose.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-543X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0142</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33740</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34196962</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Cancer ; Caregivers ; Child ; Children ; Children &amp; youth ; Clinical trials ; eligibility ; Fatigue - complications ; Humans ; Lansky Play‐Performance Scale ; Neoplasms - complications ; Neoplasms - therapy ; Oncology ; Pain ; Patients ; patient‐reported outcomes ; pediatric oncology ; Pediatrics ; Quality of Life ; Ratings ; Ratings &amp; rankings</subject><ispartof>Cancer, 2021-10, Vol.127 (19), p.3664-3670</ispartof><rights>2021 American Cancer Society.</rights><rights>2021 American Cancer Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4480-bb33bd72ed8aa1635c82960389cb7131d305e2df12fc890485d1c84a7384e8873</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4480-bb33bd72ed8aa1635c82960389cb7131d305e2df12fc890485d1c84a7384e8873</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5791-4178 ; 0000-0001-6491-6649 ; 0000-0001-5202-0335 ; 0000-0001-5074-1219 ; 0000-0002-6709-8714</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fcncr.33740$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fcncr.33740$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34196962$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Scott H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinds, Pamela S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reeve, Bryce B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mack, Jennifer W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McFatrich, Molly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Withycombe, Janice S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Shana S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Justin N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castellino, Sharon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freyer, David R.</creatorcontrib><title>Patients, caregivers, and clinicians differ in performance status ratings: Implications for pediatric cancer clinical trials</title><title>Cancer</title><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><description><![CDATA[Background The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is often used to determine a child's performance status for cancer clinical trial eligibility. Differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings and their associations with child‐reported functioning have not been evaluated. Methods Children aged 7 to 18 years who were receiving cancer treatment and their caregivers were recruited from 9 pediatric cancer centers. Caregivers and clinicians reported LPPS scores, and children completed Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatric functioning and symptom measures before treatment (time 1 [T1]) and after treatment (time 2 [T2]). t tests and mixed‐linear models were used to assess differences in caregiver and clinician LPPS scores; polyserial correlations quantified associations between PROMIS and LPPS scores. Results Of 482 children, 281 had matched caregiver‐ and clinician‐reported LPPS T1/T2 scores. Caregivers rated children significantly worse on the LPPS than clinicians at both T1 (mean, 73.3 vs 87.4; P < .01) and T2 (mean, 67.9 vs 83.1; P < .01). These differences were not related to a child's age (P = .89), diagnosis (P = .17), or sex (P = .64) or to the time point (P = .45). Small to moderate associations existed between caregiver‐ and clinician‐reported LPPS ratings and child‐reported PROMIS scores for mobility (caregiver T1/T2 r = 0.51/0.45; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = 0.40/0.35; P < .01), fatigue (caregiver T1/T2 r = –0.46/–0.37; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = –0.26/–0.27; P < .01), and pain interference (caregiver T1/T2 r = –0.32/–0.30; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = –0.17/–0.31; P < .01). Caregivers and clinicians assigned significantly lower LPPS scores at T2 (caregiver Δ = –5.37; P < .01; clinician Δ = –4.20; P < .01), whereas child‐reported PROMIS scores were clinically stable. Conclusions Significant differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings of child performance were sustained over time; their associations with child reports were predominantly small to moderate. These data suggest that clinician‐reported LPPS ratings by themselves are inadequate for determining clinical trial eligibility and should be supplemented by appropriate measures of a child's functional status reflecting the child and caregiver perspectives. The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is commonly used by clinicians for determining eligibility for pediatric cancer clinical trials. In this prospective cohort study of children receiving cancer treatment, LPPS ratings differ between clinicians and caregivers and are poorly correlated with child reports. This challenges the use of the LPPS for that purpose.]]></description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Caregivers</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Children &amp; youth</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>eligibility</subject><subject>Fatigue - complications</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lansky Play‐Performance Scale</subject><subject>Neoplasms - complications</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>patient‐reported outcomes</subject><subject>pediatric oncology</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Ratings</subject><subject>Ratings &amp; rankings</subject><issn>0008-543X</issn><issn>1097-0142</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9rFTEQgINY7LN66R8gAS9FujW_Nsl6EMrD2kKpIgq9hWySfabsZl-T3Uqhf3ynvmexHjxNJvnmYyaD0D4lR5QQ9t4ll484V4I8QwtKGlURKthztCCE6KoW_HIXvSzlClLFav4C7XJBG9lItkB3X-0UQ5rKIXY2h1W8CRnONnns-piiizYV7GPXhYxjwuuQuzEPNrmAy2SnueAMhrQqH_DZsO6jg2yEEqAA9tFOOTpwQ0HeKm2P4dL25RXa6SCE19u4h36cfPq-PK3Ov3w-Wx6fV04ITaq25bz1igWvraWS106zRhKuG9cqyqnnpA7Md5R1TjdE6NpTp4VVXIugteJ76OPGu57bIXgH82bbm3WOg823ZrTRPH1J8adZjTdGwz8RWYPgYCvI4_UcymSGWFzoe5vCOBfDaqFq1jDJAX37D3o1zjnBeEBJLQmTqgHq3YZyeSwlh-6xGUrMw1LNw1LN76UC_Obv9h_RP1sEgG6AX7EPt_9RmeXF8ttGeg96R67Y</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Maurer, Scott H.</creator><creator>Hinds, Pamela S.</creator><creator>Reeve, Bryce B.</creator><creator>Mack, Jennifer W.</creator><creator>McFatrich, Molly</creator><creator>Lin, Li</creator><creator>Withycombe, Janice S.</creator><creator>Jacobs, Shana S.</creator><creator>Baker, Justin N.</creator><creator>Castellino, Sharon M.</creator><creator>Freyer, David R.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5791-4178</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6491-6649</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5202-0335</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5074-1219</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6709-8714</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Patients, caregivers, and clinicians differ in performance status ratings: Implications for pediatric cancer clinical trials</title><author>Maurer, Scott H. ; Hinds, Pamela S. ; Reeve, Bryce B. ; Mack, Jennifer W. ; McFatrich, Molly ; Lin, Li ; Withycombe, Janice S. ; Jacobs, Shana S. ; Baker, Justin N. ; Castellino, Sharon M. ; Freyer, David R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4480-bb33bd72ed8aa1635c82960389cb7131d305e2df12fc890485d1c84a7384e8873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Caregivers</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Children &amp; youth</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>eligibility</topic><topic>Fatigue - complications</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lansky Play‐Performance Scale</topic><topic>Neoplasms - complications</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>patient‐reported outcomes</topic><topic>pediatric oncology</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Ratings</topic><topic>Ratings &amp; rankings</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Scott H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinds, Pamela S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reeve, Bryce B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mack, Jennifer W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McFatrich, Molly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Withycombe, Janice S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Shana S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Justin N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castellino, Sharon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freyer, David R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maurer, Scott H.</au><au>Hinds, Pamela S.</au><au>Reeve, Bryce B.</au><au>Mack, Jennifer W.</au><au>McFatrich, Molly</au><au>Lin, Li</au><au>Withycombe, Janice S.</au><au>Jacobs, Shana S.</au><au>Baker, Justin N.</au><au>Castellino, Sharon M.</au><au>Freyer, David R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patients, caregivers, and clinicians differ in performance status ratings: Implications for pediatric cancer clinical trials</atitle><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>127</volume><issue>19</issue><spage>3664</spage><epage>3670</epage><pages>3664-3670</pages><issn>0008-543X</issn><eissn>1097-0142</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Background The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is often used to determine a child's performance status for cancer clinical trial eligibility. Differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings and their associations with child‐reported functioning have not been evaluated. Methods Children aged 7 to 18 years who were receiving cancer treatment and their caregivers were recruited from 9 pediatric cancer centers. Caregivers and clinicians reported LPPS scores, and children completed Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatric functioning and symptom measures before treatment (time 1 [T1]) and after treatment (time 2 [T2]). t tests and mixed‐linear models were used to assess differences in caregiver and clinician LPPS scores; polyserial correlations quantified associations between PROMIS and LPPS scores. Results Of 482 children, 281 had matched caregiver‐ and clinician‐reported LPPS T1/T2 scores. Caregivers rated children significantly worse on the LPPS than clinicians at both T1 (mean, 73.3 vs 87.4; P < .01) and T2 (mean, 67.9 vs 83.1; P < .01). These differences were not related to a child's age (P = .89), diagnosis (P = .17), or sex (P = .64) or to the time point (P = .45). Small to moderate associations existed between caregiver‐ and clinician‐reported LPPS ratings and child‐reported PROMIS scores for mobility (caregiver T1/T2 r = 0.51/0.45; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = 0.40/0.35; P < .01), fatigue (caregiver T1/T2 r = –0.46/–0.37; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = –0.26/–0.27; P < .01), and pain interference (caregiver T1/T2 r = –0.32/–0.30; P < .01; clinician T1/T2 r = –0.17/–0.31; P < .01). Caregivers and clinicians assigned significantly lower LPPS scores at T2 (caregiver Δ = –5.37; P < .01; clinician Δ = –4.20; P < .01), whereas child‐reported PROMIS scores were clinically stable. Conclusions Significant differences between clinician and caregiver LPPS ratings of child performance were sustained over time; their associations with child reports were predominantly small to moderate. These data suggest that clinician‐reported LPPS ratings by themselves are inadequate for determining clinical trial eligibility and should be supplemented by appropriate measures of a child's functional status reflecting the child and caregiver perspectives. The Lansky Play‐Performance Scale (LPPS) is commonly used by clinicians for determining eligibility for pediatric cancer clinical trials. In this prospective cohort study of children receiving cancer treatment, LPPS ratings differ between clinicians and caregivers and are poorly correlated with child reports. This challenges the use of the LPPS for that purpose.]]></abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>34196962</pmid><doi>10.1002/cncr.33740</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5791-4178</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6491-6649</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5202-0335</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5074-1219</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6709-8714</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-543X
ispartof Cancer, 2021-10, Vol.127 (19), p.3664-3670
issn 0008-543X
1097-0142
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8419065
source Wiley Free Content; MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adolescent
Cancer
Caregivers
Child
Children
Children & youth
Clinical trials
eligibility
Fatigue - complications
Humans
Lansky Play‐Performance Scale
Neoplasms - complications
Neoplasms - therapy
Oncology
Pain
Patients
patient‐reported outcomes
pediatric oncology
Pediatrics
Quality of Life
Ratings
Ratings & rankings
title Patients, caregivers, and clinicians differ in performance status ratings: Implications for pediatric cancer clinical trials
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T01%3A24%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patients,%20caregivers,%20and%20clinicians%20differ%20in%20performance%20status%20ratings:%20Implications%20for%20pediatric%20cancer%20clinical%20trials&rft.jtitle=Cancer&rft.au=Maurer,%20Scott%20H.&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=127&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=3664&rft.epage=3670&rft.pages=3664-3670&rft.issn=0008-543X&rft.eissn=1097-0142&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cncr.33740&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2568602679%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2568602679&rft_id=info:pmid/34196962&rfr_iscdi=true