Objective assessment of WHO/ECOG performance status
- 15 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsPerformance status ECOG score Objective score Performance meter
Residents and staff of DUC Tabor-Ljubljana, Ulica Janeza Pavla II/4, Ljubljana Retirement Home, its Manager Mrs. Silva Kučan, Head Nurse Mrs. Radmila Radanović, and Mr. Iztok Zupančič, Engineer.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 4.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 ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Sargent DJ, Köhne CH, Sanoff HK, Bot BM, Seymour MT, de Gramont A, Porschen R, Saltz LB, Rougier P, Tournigand C, Douillard JY, Stephens RJ, Grothey A, Goldberg RM (2009) Pooled safety and efficacy analysis examining the effect of performance status on outcomes in nine first-line treatment trials using individual data from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(12):1948–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Su C, Zhou F, Shen J, Zhao J, O'Brien M (2017) Treatment of elderly patients or patients who are performance status 2 (PS2) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations—still a daily challenge. Eur J Cancer 83:266–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Skipworth RJ, Stene GB, Dahele M, Hendry PO, Small AC, Blum D, Kaasa S, Trottenberg P, Radbruch L, Strasser F, Preston T, Fearon KC, Helbostad JL (2011) Patient-focused endpoints in advanced cancer: criterion-based validation of accelerometer-based activity monitoring. Clin Nutr 30(6):812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Kelly CM, Shahrokni A (2016) From shelf to bedside-wearable electronic activity monitoring technologies might assist oncologists in functional performance status assessment of older cancer patients. Clin Colorectal Cancer 30:S1533–0028(16)30256–0Google Scholar