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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cancer 2021-10, Vol.127 (19), p.3664-3670 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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</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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |