Loading Calculator...
Please wait a moment
Please wait a moment
Assess functional status in cancer patients using the Karnofsky Performance Scale (0-100)
Performance Status
Normal
ECOG Equivalent
0
Description
Normal, no complaints, no evidence of disease
Clinical Significance
Fully active and able to work
| Karnofsky Score | ECOG | Functional Status |
|---|---|---|
| 90-100 | 0 | Fully active |
| 70-80 | 1 | Restricted in strenuous activity |
| 50-60 | 2 | Ambulatory >50% of time |
| 30-40 | 3 | Limited self-care |
| 10-20 | 4 | Completely disabled |
| 0 | 5 | Dead |
The Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) was developed by Dr. David Karnofsky in 1949 and remains one of the most widely used tools for assessing functional status in cancer patients. It uses a 0-100 scale (in increments of 10) to quantify a patient's ability to perform ordinary tasks and carry out daily activities.
KPS is used extensively for:
A KPS score of 50 or less is one indicator for hospice eligibility, suggesting:
KPS score influences treatment decisions:
KPS is a powerful predictor of survival across cancer types. Generally:
While ECOG (0-5) is simpler and more commonly used in modern clinical trials, KPS offers more granularity with its 0-100 scale. The two scales correlate well, and conversion tables exist for comparison. Many oncologists are familiar with both and use them interchangeably based on institutional preference.
A KPS of 50 or less generally qualifies for hospice eligibility, though additional criteria must be met including a physician's certification of 6 months or less life expectancy and disease-specific decline indicators.
Yes, KPS can improve with effective treatment, symptom management, rehabilitation, or resolution of acute complications. Conversely, it can decline with disease progression, treatment toxicity, or development of new problems.
Both scales are reliable and validated. KPS offers more granularity (11 levels vs. 6), while ECOG is simpler and faster to use. Neither is inherently more accurate; choice depends on institutional preference and specific clinical context.
When a patient's status falls between two KPS levels, use clinical judgment to select the score that best represents their overall functional ability. Consider averaging the patient's status over the past week rather than a single moment in time.
KPS should ideally reflect functional limitations due to cancer and its treatment, not unrelated comorbidities. However, in practice, distinguishing between causes can be difficult. Document the reasoning when comorbidities significantly impact the score.
Reassess KPS at each clinical encounter, before starting new treatment, and whenever significant clinical changes occur. In hospitalized patients, daily or weekly assessment may be appropriate. Regular documentation tracks disease trajectory.
Most chemotherapy protocols require KPS ≥70 (ECOG 0-1), though some palliative regimens may be considered for KPS 60. Below KPS 60, risks often outweigh benefits, and best supportive care is usually more appropriate.
Studies show moderate correlation between patient self-assessment and physician ratings. Patients sometimes rate themselves higher than physicians. Both perspectives are valuable; significant discrepancies warrant discussion to understand the patient's experience.