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
Review
. 2020 Sep;32(9):553-561.
doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.06.016. Epub 2020 Jul 16.

Beyond Performance Status

Affiliations
Review

Beyond Performance Status

R Simcock et al. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2020 Sep.

Abstract

Oncologists should recognise the need to move beyond the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) score. ECOG PS is a longstanding and ubiquitous feature of oncology. It was evolved 40 years ago as an adaption of the 70-year-old Karnofsky performance score. It is short, easily understood and part of the global language of oncology. The wide prevalence of the ECOG PS attests to its proven utility and worth to help triage patient treatment. The ECOG PS is problematic. It is a unidimensional functional score. It is mostly physician assessed, subjective and therefore open to bias. It fails to account for multimorbidity, frailty or cognition. Too often the PS is recorded only once in wilful ignorance of a patient's changing physical state. As modern oncology offers an ever-widening array of therapies that are 'personalised' to tumour genotype, modern oncologists must strive to better define patient phenotype. Using a wider range of scoring and assessment tools, oncologists can identify deficits that may be reversed or steps taken to mitigate detrimental effects of treatment. These tools can function well to identify those patients who would benefit from comprehensive assessment. This overview identifies the strengths of ECOG PS but highlights the weaknesses and where these are supported by other measures. A strong recommendation is made here to move to routine use of the Clinical Frailty Score to start to triage patients and most appropriately design treatments and rehabilitation interventions.

Keywords: Comorbidity; frailty; multimorbidity; polypharmacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Karnofksy D.A., Burchenal J.H. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod C.M., editor. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. Columbia University Press; New York: 1949.
    1. Oken M.M., Creech R.H., Tormey D.C., Horton J., Davis T.E., McFadden E.T. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649–655. - PubMed
    1. Chow R., Bruera E., Temel J.S., Krishnan M., Im J., Lock M. Inter-rater reliability in performance status assessment among healthcare professionals: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:2071–2078. - PubMed
    1. Sorensen J.B., Klee M., Palshof T., Hansen H.H. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. Br J Canc. 1993;67:773–775. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zimmermann C., Burman D., Bandukwala S., Seccareccia D., Kaya E., Bryson J. Nurse and physician inter-rater agreement of three performance status measures in palliative care outpatients. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:609–616. - PubMed