Scribd
Upload
111 views1 page

ECOG Performance Status Overview

The document describes the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale, which ranges from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating fully active without restriction and 5 indicating death. A status of 0 means fully active without restriction. A status of 1 means restricted physical activity but able to do light work. A status of 2 means ambulatory and able to do self-care but unable to work.

Uploaded by

hanna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
111 views1 page

ECOG Performance Status Overview

The document describes the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale, which ranges from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating fully active without restriction and 5 indicating death. A status of 0 means fully active without restriction. A status of 1 means restricted physical activity but able to do light work. A status of 2 means ambulatory and able to do self-care but unable to work.

Uploaded by

hanna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

GRADE ECOG PERFORMANCE STATUS

0 Fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction

Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of
1
a light or sedentary nature, e.g., light house work, office work

Ambulatory and capable of all selfcare but unable to carry out any work activities; up
2
and about more than 50% of waking hours

Capable of only limited selfcare; confined to bed or chair more than 50% of waking
3
hours

4 Completely disabled; cannot carry on any selfcare; totally confined to bed or chair

5 Dead

*Oken M, Creech R, Tormey D, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology
Group.Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649-655

You might also like