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
. 2026 Feb 2;11(2):106065.
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2026.106065. Online ahead of print.

Impact of ECOG performance status 2 participants on outcomes of pivotal cancer clinical trials: a meta-analysis and meta-regression

G M Iannantuono  1 , T Giovagnoli  1 , L Mastrantoni  2 , B Gyawali  3 , C S Floudas  4 , S Sganga  2 , D Giannarelli  5 , M Filetti  1 , A Spinazzola  1 , F Lo Bianco  1 , E Giudice  6 , A Vitale  2 , J L Gulley  4 , P Navarra  7 , E Bria  8 , G Daniele  9
Affiliations

Impact of ECOG performance status 2 participants on outcomes of pivotal cancer clinical trials: a meta-analysis and meta-regression

G M Iannantuono et al. ESMO Open. .

Abstract

Background: Although patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 2 constitute a significant proportion of the cancer population, they are often excluded from pivotal clinical trials owing to presumed higher risks of treatment effect dilution, toxicity, and lower compliance. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of including PS 2 participants on efficacy and safety outcomes in pivotal cancer clinical trials.

Materials and methods: We searched the 'Oncology/Hematologic Malignancies Approval Notifications' and 'Drugs@FDA' databases for clinical trials supporting 'Food and Drug Administration' anticancer drug approvals from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2024. Eligible studies were randomized phase III clinical trials of systemic therapies for metastatic solid tumors permitting the inclusion of PS 2 participants. We assessed efficacy outcomes [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)] and safety outcomes [occurrence of any-grade adverse events (AEs), high-grade AEs, serious AE (SAEs), AE-related deaths, and treatment modifications] in the included studies.

Results: Thirty-six trials were included. In subgroup analyses, no statistically significant differences were found between PS 2 and PS ≤1 participants for PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.69 versus HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41-0.66, P = 0.59] and OS (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97 versus HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.66-0.77, P = 0.18). In meta-regression analyses, no significant associations were found for efficacy outcomes. However, a higher proportion of PS 2 participants was significantly associated with an increased risk of SAEs, AE-related deaths, and treatment discontinuations.

Conclusions: Although PS 2 participants showed a greater propensity to serious toxicity, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes were observed compared with those with PS ≤1. Our results support the inclusion of PS 2 participants in clinical trials, as their exclusion limits the generalizability of results.

Keywords: eligibility criteria; meta-analysis; performance status; pivotal clinical trial; solid tumor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Subgroup analysis of PFS according to performance status. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; PFS, progression-free survival; SE, standard error.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Subgroup analysis of OS according to performance status. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; SE, standard error.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. West H.J., Jin J.O. JAMA Oncology patient page. Performance status in patients with cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(7):998. - PubMed
    1. Scott J.M., Stene G., Edvardsen E., Jones L.W. Performance status in cancer: not broken, but time for an upgrade? J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(25):2824–2829. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Karnofsky D.A., Abelmann W.H., Craver L.F., Burchenal J.H. The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. With particular reference to bronchogenic carcinoma. Cancer. 1948;1(4):634–656.
    1. Zubrod C.G., Schneiderman M., Frei E., III, et al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis. 1960;11(1):7–33.
    1. Iannantuono G.M., Floudas C.S., Filetti M., et al. Performance status eligibility requirements and enrollment characteristics in cancer clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration drugs approval (2009-2023) Eur J Cancer. 2025;225 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources