The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]

Amy P Abernethy, Tania Shelby-James, Belinda S Fazekas, David Woods, David C Currow, Amy P Abernethy, Tania Shelby-James, Belinda S Fazekas, David Woods, David C Currow

Abstract

Background: The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) is a gold standard scale. The Thorne-modified KPS (TKPS) focuses on community-based care and has been shown to be more relevant to palliative care settings than the original KPS. The Australia-modified KPS (AKPS) blends KPS and TKPS to accommodate any setting of care.

Methods: Performance status was measured using all three scales for palliative care patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial in South Australia. Care occurred in a range of settings. Survival was defined from enrollment to death.

Results: Ratings were collected at 1600 timepoints for 306 participants. The median score on all scales was 60. KPS and AKPS agreed in 87% of ratings; 79% of disagreements occurred within 1 level on the 11-level scales. KPS and TKPS agreed in 76% of ratings; 85% of disagreements occurred within one level. AKPS and TKPS agreed in 85% of ratings; 87% of disagreements were within one level. Strongest agreement occurred at the highest levels (70-90), with greatest disagreement at lower levels (< or =40). Kappa coefficients for agreement were KPS-TKPS 0.71, KPS-AKPS 0.84, and AKPS-TKPS 0.82 (all p < 0.001). Spearman correlations with survival were KPS 0.26, TKPS 0.27 and AKPS 0.26 (all p < 0.001). AKPS was most predictive of survival at the lower range of the scale. All had longitudinal test-retest validity. Face validity was greatest for the AKPS.

Conclusion: The AKPS is a useful modification of the KPS that is more appropriate for clinical settings that include multiple venues of care such as palliative care.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Profile of KPS, TKPS and AKPS scores in the 1600 observations.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatter plots of KPS-TKPS, KPS-AKPS, and AKPS-TKPS pairs.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland & Altman plot for the performance status pairs.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Survival probabilities according to KPS, TKPS and KPS by levels 50, 60 and 70 (Category B).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Survival probabilities according to KPS, TKPS and KPS by levels 30 and 40 (Category C).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Demonstration of the ability of the three instruments to respond to change in performance status over time. Plots nearly overly each other. Similar plots were generated for all participants.

References

    1. Abernethy AP, Currow DC, Hunt R, Williams H, Roder-Allen G, Rowett D, Shelby-James T, Esterman A, May F, Phillips PA. A pragmatic 2x2x2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial of educaitonal outreach visiting and case conferencing in palliative care. Methodology of the Palliative Care Trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005
    1. Kaasa T, Wessel J. The Edmonton Functional Assessment Tool: further development and validation for use in palliative care. Journal of Palliative Care. 2001;17:5–11.
    1. Nikoletti S, Porock D, Kristjanson LJ, Medigovich K, Pedler P, Smith M. Performance status assessment in home hospice patients using a modified form of the Karnofsky Performance Status scale. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2000;3:301–311. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2000.3.301.
    1. Karnofsky D, Abelmann W, Craver L, Burchenal J. The use of nitrogen mustard in the palliative treatment of cancer. Cancer. 1948;1:634–656.
    1. Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M. Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: A prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. European Journal of Cancer Part A. 1996;32:1135–1141. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(95)00664-8.
    1. Mor V, Laliberte L, Morris JN, Wiemann M. The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting. Cancer. 2002;53:2002–2007.
    1. Yates JW, Chalmer B, McKegney FP. Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky performance status. Cancer. 1980;45:2220–2224.
    1. Bennett M, Ryall N. Using the modified Barthel index to estimate survival in cancer patients in hospice: observational study. BMJ December 2, 2000;321:1381–1382. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1381.
    1. Evans C, McCarthy M. Prognostic uncertainty in terminal care: Can the Karnofsky index help? Lancet. 1985;1:1204–1206. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92876-4.
    1. Maltoni M, Nanni O, Pirovano M, Scarpi E, Indelli M, Martini C, Monti M, Arnoldi E, Piva L, Ravaioli A, Cruciani G, Labianca R, Amadori D. Successful validation of the palliative prognostic score in terminally ill cancer patients. Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 1999;17:240–247. doi: 10.1016/S0885-3924(98)00146-8.
    1. Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S. Improved accuracy of physicians' survival prediction for terminally ill cancer patients using the Palliative Prognostic Index. Palliative Medicine. 2001;15:419–424. doi: 10.1191/026921601680419474.
    1. American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Care CAP, Association HPN, Last AP, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care: Clinical Practice Guidelines for quality palliative care, executive summary. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2004;7:611–627. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2004.7.611.
    1. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1975;12:189–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.
    1. Masso M, Dodds S, Fildes D, al . Ethical research in palliative care: a guide through the Human Research Ethics Committee process. Canberra, Australia, Commonwealth of Australia Department of Health and Ageing; 2004. pp. 1–31.
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1995;346:1085–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91748-9.
    1. Kaplan EL, Meier F. Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;58:457–481.
    1. Peto R, Pike M, Armitage P. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trails requiring prolonged observation of each patient: II Analysis and examples. Br J Cancer. 1977;35:39.
    1. Eagar K. The Australian National Sub-Acute and Non-Acute Patient casemix classification. Australian Health Review 22(3):180-96, 1999.
    1. Eagar K, Green J, Gordon R. An Australian casemix classification for palliative care: technical development and results. Palliative Medicine. 2004;18:217–226. doi: 10.1191/0269216304pm875oa.
    1. Lunney JR, Lynn J, Foley DJ, Lipson S, Guralnik JM. Patterns of functional decline at the end of life. Jama. 2003;289:2387–2392. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.18.2387.
    1. Michael M, Tannock IF. Measuring health-related quality of life in clinical trials that evaluate the role of chemotherapy in cancer treatment. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1998;158:1727–1734.
    1. Anderson F, Downing GM, Hill J, Casorso L, Lerch N. Palliative performance scale (PPS): a new tool. Journal of Palliative Care. 1996;12:5–11.
    1. Virik K, Glare P. Validation of the palliative performance scale for inpatients admitted to a palliative care unit in Sydney, Australia. Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 2002;23:455–7. doi: 10.1016/S0885-3924(02)00407-4.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe