Advertisement

Objective assessment of WHO/ECOG performance status

  • Miha SokEmail author
  • Miha Zavrl
  • Boris Greif
  • Matevž Srpčič
Original Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Performance status is an important factor in determining quality of life, the choice of treatment, and prognostic tool in patients. All scoring systems currently in use measure the patient’s performance subjectively. A new method of objective assessment of performance ECOG/WHO grades 2 and 3 was constructed and tested.

Methods

A performance meter—an adapted USB data logger with a mercury tilt switch—was constructed. The device was tested in a feasibility study on 33 residents of a retirement home. Parallel to the objective assessment, each resident gave their own estimate of their performance, and each resident was in turn assessed by the nursing staff.

Results

With the performance meter, 4 residents (12%) were assessed as PS ≥ 3 in comparison with 8 (24%) and 7 (21%) residents with an ECOG score ≥ 3 estimated by patients themselves and nursing staff respectively.

Conclusion

Subjective scoring—estimated by patients themselves and by nursing staff—showed underestimation of patients’ performance. In 12% of patients, a better performance score was observed with objective measurement in comparison with subjective assessment. Performance meter could be a useful tool for health care professionals for type of care decisions.

Keywords

Performance status ECOG score Objective score Performance meter 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Residents and staff of DUC Tabor-Ljubljana, Ulica Janeza Pavla II/4, Ljubljana Retirement Home, its Manager Mrs. Silva Kučan, Head Nurse Mrs. Radmila Radanović, and Mr. Iztok Zupančič, Engineer.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Yates JW, Chalmer B, McKegney FP (1980) Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky performance status. Cancer 45(8):2220–2224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evans C, McCarthy M (1985) Prognostic uncertainty in terminal care: can the Karnofsky index help? Lancet 1(8439):1204–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hensing T, Cella D, Yount S (2005) The impact of ECOG performance status on quality of life symptoms in patients with advanced lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maltoni M, Caraceni A, Brunelli C, Broeckaert B, Christakis N, Eychmueller S, Glare P, Nabal M, Viganò A, Larkin P, De Conno F, Hanks G, Kaasa S (2005) Prognostic factors in advanced cancer patients: evidence-based clinical recommendations—a study by the Steering Committee of the European Association for palliative care.; steering Committee of the European Association for palliative care. J Clin Oncol 23(25):6240–6248 ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chow R, Chiu N, Bruera E, Krishnan M, Chiu L, Lam H, DeAngelis C, Pulenzas N, Vuong S, Chow E (2016) Inter-rater reliability in performance status assessment among health care professionals: a systematic review. Ann Palliat Med 5(2):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sargent DJ, Köhne CH, Sanoff HK, Bot BM, Seymour MT, de Gramont A, Porschen R, Saltz LB, Rougier P, Tournigand C, Douillard JY, Stephens RJ, Grothey A, Goldberg RM (2009) Pooled safety and efficacy analysis examining the effect of performance status on outcomes in nine first-line treatment trials using individual data from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(12):1948–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Su C, Zhou F, Shen J, Zhao J, O'Brien M (2017) Treatment of elderly patients or patients who are performance status 2 (PS2) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations—still a daily challenge. Eur J Cancer 83:266–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Skipworth RJ, Stene GB, Dahele M, Hendry PO, Small AC, Blum D, Kaasa S, Trottenberg P, Radbruch L, Strasser F, Preston T, Fearon KC, Helbostad JL (2011) Patient-focused endpoints in advanced cancer: criterion-based validation of accelerometer-based activity monitoring. Clin Nutr 30(6):812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelly CM, Shahrokni A (2016) Moving beyond Karnofsky and ECOG performance status assessments with new technologies. J Oncol 2016:6186543 Published online 2016 Mar 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelly CM, Shahrokni A (2016) From shelf to bedside-wearable electronic activity monitoring technologies might assist oncologists in functional performance status assessment of older cancer patients. Clin Colorectal Cancer 30:S1533–0028(16)30256–0Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oken M, Creech R, Tormey D et al (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dajczman E, Kasymjanova G, Kreisman H, Swinton N, Pepe C, Small D (2008) Should patient-rated performance status affect treatment decisions in advanced lung cancer? J Thorac Oncol 3(10):1133–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abernethy AP, Shelby-James T, Fazekas BS, Woods D, Currow DC (2005) The Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice. BMC Palliat Care 4:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, Chi M, Purnell C (1999) Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 7(5):332–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blagden SP, Charman SC, Sharples LD, Magee LR, Gilligan D (2003) Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree? Br J Cancer 89(6):1022–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maddocks M, Wilcock A (2012) Exploring physical activity level in patients with thoracic cancer: implications for use as an outcome measure. Support Care Cancer 20(5):1113–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chow E, Abdolell M, Panzarella T, Harris K, Bezjak A, Warde P, Tannock I (2008) Predictive model for survival in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(36):5863–5869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suh SY, Choi YS, Shim JY, Kim YS, Yeom CH, Kim D, Park SA, Kim S, Seo JY, Kim SH, Kim D, Choi SE, Ahn HY (2010) Construction of a new, objective prognostic score for terminally ill cancer patients: a multicenter study. Support Care Cancer 18(2):151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trédan O, Ray-Coquard I, Chvetzoff G, Rebattu P, Bajard A, Chabaud S, Pérol D, Saba C, Quiblier F, Blay JY, Bachelot T (2011) Validation of prognostic scores for survival in cancer patients beyond first-line therapy. BMC Cancer 11:95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Thoracic SurgeryUniversity Medical Centre LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations