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: 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.

Duke Scholars

Author Bryce B. Reeve Population Health Sciences