Literature DB >> 8471434

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

J B Sørensen1, M Klee, T Palshof, H H Hansen.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8471434      PMCID: PMC1968363          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1993.140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  17 in total

Review 1.  The reliability of clinical methods, data and judgments (first of two parts).

Authors:  L M Koran
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1975-09-25       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The electrocardiogram and its interpretation: a study of reports by 20 physicians on a set of 100 electrocardiograms.

Authors:  H N SEGALL
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1960-01-02       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Observer error in liver scans.

Authors:  H O Conn; R P Spencer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1972-05       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines.

Authors:  C C Schag; R L Heinrich; P A Ganz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Scientific problems in clinical scales, as demonstrated in the Karnofsky index of performance status.

Authors:  T A Hutchinson; N F Boyd; A R Feinstein; A Gonda; D Hollomby; B Rowat
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1979

6.  Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky performance status.

Authors:  J W Yates; B Chalmer; F P McKegney
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1980-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index-Cancer: development and validation.

Authors:  H Schipper; J Clinch; A McMurray; M Levitt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting.

Authors:  V Mor; L Laliberte; J N Morris; M Wiemann
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1984-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Prognostic factors in metastatic breast cancer treated with combination chemotherapy.

Authors:  K D Swenerton; S S Legha; T Smith; G N Hortobagyi; E A Gehan; H Y Yap; J U Gutterman; G R Blumenschein
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  Physical function assessment in patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  C A Wood; J Anderson; J W Yates
Journal:  Med Pediatr Oncol       Date:  1981
View more
  118 in total

1.  Disparities in care for patients with curable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Blaire Burman; W Scott Helton
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  Dyadic influence of hope and optimism on patient marital satisfaction among couples with advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  Emily E Rock; Jennifer L Steiner; Kevin L Rand; Silvia M Bigatti
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 3.  Locoregional Therapy, Immunotherapy and the Combination in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Future Directions.

Authors:  Meaghan S Dendy; Johannes M Ludwig; Stacey M Stein; Hyun S Kim
Journal:  Liver Cancer       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 11.740

4.  Development of a simplified multivariable model to predict neutropenic complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Authors:  Abolfazl Razzaghdoust; Bahram Mofid; Maryam Moghadam
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Prognostic factors for survival in patients with early-intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing non-surgical therapy: comparison of Okuda, CLIP, and BCLC staging systems in a single Italian centre.

Authors:  A Grieco; M Pompili; G Caminiti; L Miele; M Covino; B Alfei; G L Rapaccini; G Gasbarrini
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Sodium hydroxide as a sclerosing agent in patients with neoplastic pleural effusion non-candidates for VATS: results of a minimally invasive protocol.

Authors:  Micaela Raices; Matías E Czerwonko; Agustin Dietrich; Alejandro Da Lozzo; Enrique Beveraggi; David Smith
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2017-08-31

Review 7.  Treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Alejandro Forner; Marine Gilabert; Jordi Bruix; Jean-Luc Raoul
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 66.675

8.  Sexual activity and body image: examining gender variability and the influence of psychological distress in cancer patients.

Authors:  Jessica Krok; Tamara Baker; Susan McMillan
Journal:  J Gend Stud       Date:  2013-10-01

9.  Surgical strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with portal vein tumor thrombus based on prognostic factors.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kondo; Kazuo Chijiiwa; Masahiro Kai; Kazuhiro Otani; Koki Nagaike; Jiro Ohuchida; Masahide Hiyoshi; Motoaki Nagano
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  EQ-5D Health Utility Scores: Data from a Comprehensive Canadian Cancer Centre.

Authors:  Hiten Naik; Doris Howell; Susie Su; Xin Qiu; M Catherine Brown; Ashlee Vennettilli; Margaret Irwin; Vivien Pat; Hannah Solomon; Tian Wang; Henrique Hon; Lawson Eng; Mary Mahler; Henry Thai; Valerie Ho; Wei Xu; Soo Jin Seung; Nicole Mittmann; Geoffrey Liu
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.