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
Case Reports
. 2019 Sep 25;12(3):728-736.
doi: 10.1159/000503095. eCollection 2019 Sep-Dec.

Performance Status Assessment by Using ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Score for Cancer Patients by Oncology Healthcare Professionals

Faisal Azam  1 , Muhammad Farooq Latif  2 , Ayesha Farooq  3 , Syed Hammad Tirmazy  2 , Saad AlShahrani  1 , Shahid Bashir  1 , Nedal Bukhari  1   4
Affiliations
Case Reports

Performance Status Assessment by Using ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Score for Cancer Patients by Oncology Healthcare Professionals

Faisal Azam et al. Case Rep Oncol. .

Abstract

Medical literature does not have clear consensus on inter-rater reliability of PS assessment by different oncology health care professionals (HCPs) although it plays an important role in treatment decision and prognosis for oncology patients. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) scores are commonly used for this purpose by oncology HCPs around the world. This study was conducted to find variability or similarities in assessment of PS among the different oncology HCPs. A survey based on four hypothetical clinical scenarios was devised and sent to 50 oncology HCPs to assess the PS using ECOG PS tool. No significant variations in PS assessment by oncology HCPs was noted in our study sample.

Keywords: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG); Karnofsky performance status (KPS); Performance status.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that authors have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Numbers of HCPs responses for the first scenario.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Questionnaire with clinical scenarios used for the study.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Numbers of HCPs responses for the second scenario.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Numbers of HCPs responses for the third scenario.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Numbers of HCPs responses for the fourth scenario.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Karnofsky David A, Walter H, Abelmann, Lloyd F, Burchenal Craver Joseph H, The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma With particular reference to bronchogenic carcinoma. Cancer. 1948 Nov;1((4)):634–56.
    1. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5((6)):649–55. - PubMed
    1. Anderson F, Downing GM, Hill J, Casorso L, Lerch N. Palliative performance scale (PPS): a new tool. J Palliat Care. 1996;12((1)):5–11. - PubMed
    1. Ciara M. Kelly, Armin Shahrokni, Moving beyond Karnofsky and ECOG Performance Status Assessments with New Technologies. J Oncol. 2016 Mar;2016((3)):1–13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Taylor AE, Olver IN, Sivanthan T, Chi M, Purnell C. Observer error in grading performance status in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 1999 Sep;7((5)):332–5. - PubMed

Publication types