Difference between revisions of "Performance status"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
==Comparing Karnofsky performance scale & ECOG performance status== | ==Comparing Karnofsky performance scale & ECOG performance status== | ||
− | *Karnofsky score of | + | Note: There are other sources that break these comparisons down to a finer degree, but there are disparities between them, and I could not find a more suitable head-to-head comparison in the primary literature to reference. |
− | + | *Karnofsky score of 80-100% = ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 | |
− | *Karnofsky score of | + | *Karnofsky score of 60-70% = ECOG performance status of 2 |
− | *Karnofsky score of | + | *Karnofsky score of 10-50% = ECOG performance status of 3 or 4 |
− | |||
*Karnofsky score of 0% = ECOG performance status of 5 | *Karnofsky score of 0% = ECOG performance status of 5 | ||
Line 82: | Line 81: | ||
# [http://www.ecog.org/general/perf_stat.html ECOG Performance Status] '''(contains performance scale)''' Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Robert Comis M.D., Group Chair. | # [http://www.ecog.org/general/perf_stat.html ECOG Performance Status] '''(contains performance scale)''' Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Robert Comis M.D., Group Chair. | ||
# Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984 Mar;2(3):187-93. [http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/2/3/187.long link to original article] '''(contains performance scale)''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6699671 PubMed] | # Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984 Mar;2(3):187-93. [http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/2/3/187.long link to original article] '''(contains performance scale)''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6699671 PubMed] | ||
+ | # Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M. Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer. 1996 Jun;32A(7):1135-41. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0959804995006648 link to original article] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8758243 PubMed] |
Revision as of 06:50, 27 November 2011
ECOG performance status
Grade | Description |
---|---|
0 | Fully active, able to continue with all pre-disease activities without restriction. |
1 | Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature, e.g., light house work, office work. |
2 | Ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work activities. Up and about more than 50% of waking hours. |
3 | Capable of only limited self-care. Confined to bed or chair more than 50% of waking hours. |
4 | Completely disabled. Cannot carry on any self-care. Totally confined to bed or chair. |
5 | Dead. |
Karnofsky performance scale
Condition | Performance status % | Comments |
---|---|---|
Able to carry on normal activity and to work. No special care needed. | 100 | Normal. No complaints. No evidence of disease. |
90 | Able to carry on normal activity. Minor signs or symptoms of disease. | |
80 | Normal activity with effort. Some signs or symptoms of disease. | |
Unable to work. Able to live at home and care for most personal needs. A varying degree of assistance is needed. | 70 | Cares for self. Unable to carry on normal activity or to do active work. |
60 | Requires occasional assistance, but is able to care for most of personal needs. | |
50 | Requires considerable assistance and frequent medical care. | |
Unable to care for self. Requires equivalent of institutional or hospital care. Disease may be progressing rapidly. | 40 | Disabled. Requires special care and assistance. |
30 | Severely disabled. Hospital admission is indicated although death is not imminent. | |
20 | Hospitalization necessary. Very sick, active supportive treatment necessary. | |
10 | Moribund; fatal processes progressing rapidly. | |
0 | Dead. |
Comparing Karnofsky performance scale & ECOG performance status
Note: There are other sources that break these comparisons down to a finer degree, but there are disparities between them, and I could not find a more suitable head-to-head comparison in the primary literature to reference.
- Karnofsky score of 80-100% = ECOG performance status of 0 or 1
- Karnofsky score of 60-70% = ECOG performance status of 2
- Karnofsky score of 10-50% = ECOG performance status of 3 or 4
- Karnofsky score of 0% = ECOG performance status of 5
References
- Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):649-55. link to original article PubMed
- ECOG Performance Status (contains performance scale) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Robert Comis M.D., Group Chair.
- Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984 Mar;2(3):187-93. link to original article (contains performance scale) PubMed
- Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M. Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer. 1996 Jun;32A(7):1135-41. link to original article PubMed