47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Moving beyond Karnofsky and ECOG Performance Status Assessments with New Technologies

      review-article
      1 , * , 1 , 2
      Journal of Oncology
      Hindawi Publishing Corporation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Progress in cancer research is coupled with increased treatment complexity reliant upon accurate patient selection. Oncologists rely upon measurement instruments of functional performance such as the Karnofsky or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status scales that were developed over fifty years ago to determine a patient's suitability for systemic treatment. These standard assessment tools have been shown to correlate with response to chemotherapy, chemotherapy tolerability, survival, and quality of life of cancer patients. However, these scales are subjective, subject to bias and high interobserver variability. Despite these limitations important clinical decisions are based on PS including eligibility for clinical trials, the “optimal” therapeutic approach in routine practice, and the allocation of healthcare resources. This paper reviews the past, present, and potential future of functional performance status assessment in an oncology setting. The potential ability of electronic activity monitoring systems to provide an objective, accurate measurement of patient functional performance is explored. Electronic activity monitoring devices have the potential to offer positive health-related opportunities to patients; however their introduction to the healthcare setting is not without difficulty. The potential role of this technology in healthcare and the challenges that these new innovations pose to the healthcare industry are also examined.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study

          Background Technological advances have seen a burgeoning industry for accelerometer-based wearable activity monitors targeted at the consumer market. The purpose of this study was to determine the convergent validity of a selection of consumer-level accelerometer-based activity monitors. Methods 21 healthy adults wore seven consumer-level activity monitors (Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip, Jawbone UP, Misfit Shine, Nike Fuelband, Striiv Smart Pedometer and Withings Pulse) and two research-grade accelerometers/multi-sensor devices (BodyMedia SenseWear, and ActiGraph GT3X+) for 48-hours. Participants went about their daily life in free-living conditions during data collection. The validity of the consumer-level activity monitors relative to the research devices for step count, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), sleep and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) was quantified using Bland-Altman analysis, median absolute difference and Pearson’s correlation. Results All consumer-level activity monitors correlated strongly (r > 0.8) with research-grade devices for step count and sleep time, but only moderately-to-strongly for TDEE (r = 0.74-0.81) and MVPA (r = 0.52-0.91). Median absolute differences were generally modest for sleep and steps (<10% of research device mean values for the majority of devices) moderate for TDEE (<30% of research device mean values), and large for MVPA (26-298%). Across the constructs examined, the Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse performed most strongly. Conclusions In free-living conditions, the consumer-level activity monitors showed strong validity for the measurement of steps and sleep duration, and moderate valid for measurement of TDEE and MVPA. Validity for each construct ranged widely between devices, with the Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse being the strongest performers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future.

            This paper reviews accelerometry-based activity monitors, including single-site first-generation devices, emerging technologies, and analytical approaches to predict energy expenditure, with suggestions for further research and development. The physics and measurement principles of the accelerometer are described, including the sensor properties, data collections, filtering, and integration analyses. The paper also compares these properties in several commonly used single-site accelerometers. The emerging accelerometry technologies introduced include the multisensor arrays and the combination of accelerometers with physiological sensors. The outputs of accelerometers are compared with criterion measures of energy expenditure (indirect calorimeters and double-labeled water) to develop mathematical models (linear, nonlinear, and variability approaches). The technologies of the sensor and data processing directly influence the results of the outcome measurement (activity counts and energy expenditure predictions). Multisite assessment and combining accelerometers with physiological measures may offer additional advantages. Nonlinear approaches to predict energy expenditure using accelerometer outputs from multiple sites and orientation can enhance accuracy. The development of portable accelerometers has made objective assessments of physical activity possible. Future technological improvements will include examining raw acceleration signals and developing advanced models for accurate energy expenditure predictions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomized Trial of a Fitbit-Based Physical Activity Intervention for Women.

              Direct-to-consumer mHealth devices are a potential asset to behavioral research but rarely tested as intervention tools. This trial examined the accelerometer-based Fitbit tracker and website as a low-touch physical activity intervention. The purpose of this study is to evaluate, within an RCT, the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of integrating the Fitbit tracker and website into a physical activity intervention for postmenopausal women.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Oncol
                J Oncol
                JO
                Journal of Oncology
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1687-8450
                1687-8469
                2016
                15 March 2016
                : 2016
                : 6186543
                Affiliations
                1Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
                2Geriatrics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
                Author notes
                *Ciara M. Kelly: kellyc1@ 123456mskcc.org

                Academic Editor: Jorg Kleeff

                Article
                10.1155/2016/6186543
                4811104
                27066075
                ff405cb0-1c0d-49f7-a568-4d62b73cbb84
                Copyright © 2016 C. M. Kelly and A. Shahrokni.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 December 2015
                : 14 February 2016
                : 17 February 2016
                Categories
                Review Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article