Literature DB >> 24484718

Patients over 65 years are assigned lower ECOG PS scores than younger patients, although objectively measured physical activity is no different.

Julie M Broderick1, Juliette Hussey2, M J Kennedy3, Dearbhaile M O' Donnell3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Eastern Cooperative Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) is a widely used standard functional classification in oncology practice, the verbal descriptors of which refer to physical activity (PA). Little is known about the cut-off points of this scale and measured PA levels. This research investigated the relationship between PS assigned, objectively measured PA, and patient age.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred ambulatory patients with treatment-naive cancer wore an accelerometer (RT3) for a mean (SD) of 5.6 (1.1) days before initial oncology evaluation and ECOG PS assignment.
RESULTS: Seventy five participants (75%) were <65 years and 25 were ≥65 years. Eighty nine (89%) were assigned an ECOG PS of 0 or 1 and 11% a PS of 2 or 3. A weak but significant inverse association was found between objectively measured PA and PS (rho = -0.26, p = 0.01). Seventy one participants (80%) with a PS of 0 or 1 spent more than 50% of waking hours resting. Participants assigned a PS of 2-3 spent significantly more time resting than those assigned a PS of 0 (p = 0.01). Age ≥65 years was significantly related to PS assigned (p = 0.04), although the older cohort were no less sedentary than younger patients.
CONCLUSION: PA levels were low, but PS scoring reflected relative PA levels and differentiated between patients of PS 0 and 2-3. Chronological age was not predictive of activity levels, but older patients were assigned lower PS scores. Incorporation of objective PA measures may merit further investigation especially in the geriatric oncology setting.
© 2013.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accelerometer; Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group; Geriatric assessment; Performance status; Physical activity

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24484718     DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2013.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Geriatr Oncol        ISSN: 1879-4068            Impact factor:   3.599


  13 in total

Review 1.  The Value of Patient Reported Outcomes and Other Patient-Generated Health Data in Clinical Hematology.

Authors:  Hemant S Murthy; William A Wood
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.952

2.  The HOPE Pilot Study: Harnessing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Biometric Data to Enhance Cancer Care.

Authors:  Alexi A Wright; Nikita Raman; Patrick Staples; Stephanie Schonholz; Angel Cronin; Kenzie Carlson; Nancy L Keating; Jukka-Pekka Onnela
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2018-12

Review 3.  Promise of Wearable Physical Activity Monitors in Oncology Practice.

Authors:  Muhammad S Beg; Arjun Gupta; Tyler Stewart; Chad D Rethorst
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 4.  Treatment Paradigms for Older Adults with Pancreatic Cancer: a Nuanced Approach.

Authors:  Arthur Winer; Efrat Dotan
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2021-10-01

5.  Anlotinib plus etoposide and cisplatin/carboplatin as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC): a single-arm, phase II study.

Authors:  Tiandong Kong; Lu Chen; Xiaoli Zhao; Fangfang Duan; Hanli Zhou; Lei Wang; Danna Liu
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.651

6.  Sarcopenia during neoadjuvant therapy for oesophageal cancer: characterising the impact on muscle strength and physical performance.

Authors:  Emer M Guinan; S L Doyle; A E Bennett; L O'Neill; J Gannon; J A Elliott; J O'Sullivan; J V Reynolds; J Hussey
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Prognostic value of a patient-reported functional score versus physician-reported Karnofsky Performance Status Score in brain metastases.

Authors:  Jai Prakash Agarwal; Santam Chakraborty; Sarbani Ghosh Laskar; Naveen Mummudi; Vijay M Patil; Kumar Prabhash; Vanita Noronha; Nilendu Purandare; Amit Joshi; Sandeep Tandon; Jitendra Arora; Rupali Badhe
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2017-11-10

Review 8.  Tracking steps in oncology: the time is now.

Authors:  Juhi M Purswani; Nitin Ohri; Colin Champ
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 3.989

9.  Antibiotic use is a negative predictor of the efficacy and toxicity of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Kejun Liu; Weiwei Zhang; Qinquan Tan; Guanming Jiang; Jun Jia
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 10.  Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Performance Status Work Group.

Authors:  Allison Magnuson; Suanna S Bruinooge; Harpreet Singh; Keith D Wilner; Shadia Jalal; Stuart M Lichtman; Paul G Kluetz; Gary H Lyman; Heidi D Klepin; Mark E Fleury; Brad Hirsch; Allen Melemed; Fernanda I Arnaldez; Upal Basu Roy; Caroline Schenkel; Shimere Sherwood; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 13.801

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.