A pilot study comparing objective physical activity to the physical component of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale

Abstract

e20501 Background: The ECOG performance status (PS) scale is widely used in oncology for clinical decision-making, being a good predictor of survival, prognosis, and treatment response. It has never been formally compared to objective measures of physical activity (PA). Accelerometers are now established as detailed valid measures of PA. The aim of this study was to compare the ECOG PS scale to objectively measured PA. Methods: Accelerometer data (RT3) as well as self-report (International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)) was collected for at least 3 days immediately before cancer outpatient assessment on 15 patients (6 males, 9 females) with a mean age of 65 years (range 47–51), all with solid tumours. RT3 and self-report data were compared to the ECOG PS score assigned by the treating physician. Time ‘up and about’ is all activity, however minimal, detected by the RT3, except lying flat. Institutional ethics committee approval was gained. Results: Most subjects were assigned an ECOG score of 1. In all subjects, the score assigned over-estimated PA levels ( Table ). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient showed poor correlation between percentage waking time ‘up and about’ and the ECOG PS score assigned (p = -0.1), and between the IPAQ and ECOG scores (p = 0.1). Conclusions: Although ECOG PS is recognized as a good predictor of clinical outcome, a poor correlation was found between ECOG PS assigned, objective PA, and self-report. Subjects were far more sedentary than estimated using physician-assigned ECOG PS. A large study to investigate these relationships further is ongoing. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.