Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct;27(10):3793-3798.
doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4597-z. Epub 2019 Feb 5.

Objective assessment of WHO/ECOG performance status

Miha Sok  1   2 , Miha Zavrl  3 , Boris Greif  3 , Matevž Srpčič  3
Affiliations

Objective assessment of WHO/ECOG performance status

Miha Sok et al. Support Care Cancer. 2019 Oct.

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: ECOG score; Objective score; Performance meter; Performance status.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Yates JW, Chalmer B, McKegney FP (1980) Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky performance status. Cancer 45(8):2220–2224 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Evans C, McCarthy M (1985) Prognostic uncertainty in terminal care: can the Karnofsky index help? Lancet 1(8439):1204–1206 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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 23:8099 - DOI
    1. 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 Review - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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):83–92 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources