INTRA AND INTEROBSERVER VARIABILITY IN CANCER-PATIENTS PERFORMANCE STATUS ASSESSED ACCORDING TO KARNOFSKY AND ECOG SCALES

被引:104
作者
ROILA, F
LUPATTELLI, M
SASSI, M
BASURTO, C
BRACARDA, S
PICCIAFUOCO, M
BOSCHETTI, E
MILELLA, G
BALLATORI, E
TONATO, M
DELFAVERO, A
机构
[1] UNIV PERUGIA,DEPT STAT,I-06100 PERUGIA,ITALY
[2] UNIV PERUGIA,INST SEMEIOT MED,I-06100 PERUGIA,ITALY
[3] UNIV PERUGIA,INST INTERNAL MED 1,I-06100 PERUGIA,ITALY
关键词
ECOG PERFORMANCE STATUS; INTRA-INTEROBSERVER VARIABILITY; KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE STATUS;
D O I
10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a057981
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The Karnofsky (K) and ECOG (E) performance status (PS) scales are widely used to evaluate the functional status of cancer patients to determine their eligibility for clinical trials and their prognosis, but knowledge of inter and intraobserver variability of these scales is scarse. We therefore planned a prospective study on 209 consecutive cancer patients to evaluate this critical point. Two independent observers evaluated the KPS and EPS of each patient by interviewing them on the same day. After their interviews the patients were asked to fill in, again on the same day, a self-evaluation scale concerning their ability to perform the routine activities of daily life. The 209 patient self-evaluation scales were presented twice, randomly and blinded, to the two observers who had participated in the evaluation of PS as well as to one other observer who had not. The interobserver correlation for both scales was very high (K = 0.921 for KPS and K = 0.914 for EPS) as was the intraobserver correlation (for KPS: K = 0.993, K = 0.960, and K = 0.959 and, respectively, for EPS: K = 0.982, K = 0.970, and K = 0.920). On the basis of these results, it appears that evaluation of PS made by a clinical oncologist using K or E scales can be very reliable and is a guarantee of optimal selection of cancer patients for inclusion in clinical trials.
引用
收藏
页码:437 / 439
页数:3
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
CONILL C, 1990, CANCER, V65, P1864, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19900415)65:8<1864::AID-CNCR2820650832>3.0.CO
[2]  
2-U
[3]  
Fleiss JL., 1981, STAT METHODS RATES P, V2
[4]   SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS IN CLINICAL-SCALES, AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE KARNOFSKY INDEX OF PERFORMANCE STATUS [J].
HUTCHINSON, TA ;
BOYD, NF ;
FEINSTEIN, AR ;
GONDA, A ;
HOLLOMBY, D ;
ROWAT, B .
JOURNAL OF CHRONIC DISEASES, 1979, 32 (9-10) :661-666
[5]   MISINTERPRETATION AND MISUSE OF THE KAPPA-STATISTIC [J].
MACLURE, M ;
WILLETT, WC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1987, 126 (02) :161-169
[6]  
MOR V, 1984, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V53, P2002, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19840501)53:9<2002::AID-CNCR2820530933>3.0.CO
[7]  
2-W
[8]  
ORR ST, 1986, CANCER TREAT REP, V70, P1423
[9]   KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE STATUS REVISITED - RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND GUIDELINES [J].
SCHAG, CC ;
HEINRICH, RL ;
GANZ, PA .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1984, 2 (03) :187-193
[10]  
SORENSEN JB, 1989, P ECCO, V5