Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study

Abstract

Summary The ECOG Scale of Performance Status (PS) is widely used to quantify the functional status of cancer patients, and is an important factor determining prognosis in a number of malignant conditions. The PS describes the status of symptoms and functions with respect to ambulatory status and need for care. PS 0 means normal activity, PS 1 means some symptoms, but still near fully ambulatory, PS 2 means less than 50%, and PS 3 means more than 50% of daytime in bed, while PS 4 means completely bedridden. An inter-observer variability study of PS assessment has been carried out to evaluate the non-chance agreement among three oncologists rating 100 consecutive cancer patients. Total unanimity was observed in 40 cases, unanimity between two observers in 53 cases, and total disagreement in seven cases. Kappa statistics reveal the ability of the observers compared to change alone and were used to evaluate non-chance agreement. Overall Kappa was 0.44, (95% confidence limits 0.38-0.51). The Kappa for PS 0 was 0.55 (0.44-0.67), while those for PS 1, 2, 3 and four were 0.48 (0.37-0.60), 0.31 (0.19-0.42), 0.43 (0.32-0.55), and 0.33 (0.33-0.45), respectively. If one observer allocated patients to PS 0-2, then another randomly selected observed placed the patients in the same category with a probability of 0.92. For patients with PS 3-4 the probability that the same category would be chosen was 0.82. Overall, the non-chance agreement between observers was only moderate, when all ECOG Performance Status groups were considered. However, agreement with regard to allocation of patients to PS 0-2 versus 3-4 was high. This is of interest because this cut-off is often used in clinical studies.

Focusing on Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Symptomatic Adverse Events, Physical Function, and Disease-Related Symptoms

“…Physical function can be affected by both disease symptoms and treatment-related adverse events and is included as a domain in most patient-reported HRQOL measures. Although patient-reported physical function impacts are clinically meaningful in and of themselves, different measures of physical function or performance status assessed by investigators (12) and by PRO measures (13) have also been shown to be prognostic for survival across several cancer populations.…”

Comparison of 7 staging systems for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization

“…5 Performance status assessment followed the guidelines of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. 16 The number of tumors was determined from the pretreatment CT scan. Tumor size was determined as the greatest dimension of the tumor measured on the pretreatment CT scan.…”

What is the best staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma in the setting of liver transplantation?

“…Few of these systems include an assessment of the presence of cancerrelated symptoms. 4,8,9,17,18 The assessment of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 19 or the Karnofsky index 20 is a well-established item in oncology practices; patients with a performance status > 2 are usually considered to have a grim prognosis, and the survival impact of any therapy is highly doubtful. Among the recently assessed systems that are used today, only the BCLC and GRETCH systems assess the performance status, and the CUPI system assesses the presence or absence of symptomatic disease.…”