Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Karnofsky performance status scale re-examined: a cross-validation with the EORTC-C30

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A cross-validation of the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and quality of life (QOL) as measured by item 30 of the quality of life questionnaire developed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group (EORTC QLQ-C30) was conducted using ordered logit analysis and prospective data from a continuous sample of 139 lung cancer patients. The QOL is found to be a much broader concept than the KPS, since it likely captures not only physical functioning but also functioning in the non-physical dimensions of social, emotional, and possibly cognitive well-being as well as the level of distress in the physical dimensions of pain, breathing and fatigue. These results suggest that the palliative treatment of advanced cancer and the terminally ill should be guided by a broad concept of well-being that goes beyond one based only on physical functioning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Karnofsky DA, Abelman WH, Craner LF, et al. The use of nitrogen mustards in palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer 1948; 1: 634–656.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Verger E, Salamero M, Conill C. Can Karnofsky Performance Status be transformed to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scoring scale and vice versa? Eur J Cancer 1992; 28A: 1328–1330.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yates JW, Chalmer B, McKegney FP. Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky Performance Status. Cancer 1980; 45: 2220–2224.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mor V, Laliberte L, Morris JN, et al. The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale: an examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting. Cancer 1980; 53: 2002–2007.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stanley KE. Prognostic factors for survival in patients with inoperable lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1980; 65: 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shipp MA, Harrington DP, Klatt MM, et al. Identification of major prognostic subgroups of patients with large-cell lymphoma treated with m-BACOD or M-BACOD. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104: 757–765.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sorensen JB, Badsberg JH. Prognostic factors in resected stage I and II adenocarcinoma of the lung. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990; 99: 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Duncan GG, Goodman GB, Ludgate CM, et al. The treatment of adult supratentorial high grade astrocytomas. J Neuro-Oncol 1992; 13: 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hutchinson TA, Boyd NF, Feinstein AR. Scientific problems in clinical scales, as demonstrated in the Karnofsky index of performance status. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 661–666.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Janz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity and guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 187–193.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Orr ST, Aisner J. Performance status assessment among oncology patients: a review. Cancer Treat Rep 1986; 70: 1423–1429.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mehta MP, Rozental JM, Levin AB, et al. Defining the role of radiosurgery in the management of brain metastases. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Physics 1992; 24: 619–625.

    Google Scholar 

  13. O'Rourke IC, McNeil RJ, Walker RJ, et al. Objective evaluation of the quality of palliation in patients with oesophageal cancer comparing surgery, radiotherapy and intubation. Aust NZ J Surg 1992; 62: 922–930.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sachsenheimer W, Piotrowski W, Bimmler T. Quality of life in patients with intracranial tumours on the basis of Karnofsky's performance status. J Neuro-Oncol 1992; 13: 177–181.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vinante O, Bari M, Segati R, et al. The combination of mitomycin, vinblastine and cisplatin is active in the palliation of stage IIIB–IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Oncology 1993; 50: 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Till JE, McNeil BJ, Bush RS. Measurement of multiple components of quality of life. Cancer Treat Symp 1984; 1: 177–181.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Aaronson NK, Baillinger M, Ahmedzai S. A modular approach to quality-of-life assessment in clinical trials. Rec Res Cancer Res 1988; III: 231–249.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ware JE. Measuring functioning, well-being and other generic health concepts. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991: 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gotay CC, Korn EL, McCabe MS, et al. Quality-of-life assessment in cancer treatment protocols: research issues in protocol development. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84: 575–579.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nayfield SG, Ganz PA, Moinpour CM, et al. Report from a National Cancer Institute (USA) Workshop on Quality of Life Assessment in Cancer Clinical Trials. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 203–210.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schipper H, Clinch J, McMurray A, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index-Cancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 472–483.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman G, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Coscarelli Schag CA, Ganz PA, Heinrich RL. Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System—Short Form (CARES-SF). A cancer specific rehabilitation and quality of life instrument. Cancer 1991; 68: 1406–1413.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 570–579.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Selby PJ, Chapman J-AW, Etazadi-Amoli J. The development of a method for assessing quality of life in cancer patients. Br J Cancer 1984; 50: 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Greene WH. Econometric Analysis, 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan, 1993: 672–676.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Greene WH. Econometric Analysis, 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan, 1993: 230.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Greene WH. Econometric Analysis, 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan, 1993: 651.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mackworth N, Fobair P, Prados MD. Quality of life self-reports from 200 brain tumour patients: comparisons with Karnofsky performance scores. J Neuro-Oncol 1992; 14: 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, et al. Measuring quality of life of cancer patients. A concise QL-index for use by physicians. J Chronic Dis 1981; 34: 585–597.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, et al. Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer 1988; 57: 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Presant CA. Quality of life in cancer patients. Who measures what? Am J Clin Oncol 1984; 7: 571–573.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Morrow GR, Lindke J, Black P. Measurement of quality of life in patients: psychometric analyses of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC). Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 287–296.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bliss JM, Selby PJ, Robertson B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of life of cancer patients: replication of the factor structure. Br J Cancer 1992; 65: 961–966.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ringdal GI, Ringdal K. Testing the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bullinger M, et al. The EORTC Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire: interim results of an international field study. In: Osoba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991: 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1990: 325–328.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Victoria, PO Box 3050, V8W 3P5, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

    J. Schaafsma

  2. Communities Oncology Program, British Columbia Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, 600 West 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E6, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    D. Osoba

  3. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 600 West 10th Avenue, V5Z 4E6, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    D. Osoba

Authors
  1. J. Schaafsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Osoba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supported by the British Columbia Health Research Foundation and the Science Council of British Columbia Health Development Fund Grants HDF Joint 70–89 and 14–90.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schaafsma, J., Osoba, D. The Karnofsky performance status scale re-examined: a cross-validation with the EORTC-C30. Qual Life Res 3, 413–424 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435393

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435393

Key words

Search

Navigation