English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

BACKGROUND Inclusion criteria for oncological protocols often use the Karnofsky performance score (KPS) &gt;=70 or the WHO performance score (PS) 0–2 as a cut-off value. Inclusion of neuro-oncology patients may be hampered, when general condition is preserved, while performance is decreased due to physical handicap. The goal of this study is to compare the KPS and PS assessments according to the status of the clinician. MATERIAL AND METHODS A cross-sectional survey was conducted through ANOCEF and EANO networks. Clinicians evaluated KPS and PS in 6 clinical situations concerning neuro oncology patients (from youngest and fittest to oldest, crippled with comorbidities). RESULTS The rate of PS   2 increased significantly from case 1 to 6. Sex or nationality of the clinicians had no impact when adjusting on clinician characteristics. Conversely, speciality (residents/general practitioner vs neurosurgeons vs neurologists vs oncologists), impacted KPS or PS evaluations (p&lt;.0001 and p=0.0046, respectively). Residents or general practitioner estimate KPS much lower than the others specialities. Neurosurgeons estimate PS more severely. Clinicians who were not used to including patients in clinical trials proposed lower KPS scores (p = 0.0008). This tendancy was not shown on PS. Eldest physicians significantly rated more severely than the youngest (p = 0.0459 and p &lt;.0001 for KPS and PS, respectively). In a multivariate analysis, age and speciality were correlated with KPS and PS rating even if adjusted on cases. Discordant decision for protocol inclusion (i:e: (KPS) &gt;=70 vs PS 0–2) showed little discrepancy in case 1 (2.3%), while discrepancy increased to respectively 16, 46, 39, 33 and 43% for cases 2 to 6: in nearly all cases, the KPS would have denied access to a trial, while WHO Ps would have allowed CONCLUSION Rating of KP and PS is subjective in neuro oncology patients: influenced by speciality, age and inclusion habit (for KPS) of clinicians, PS 0–2 allows usually more inclusion than KPS&gt;=70 in more severely disabled patients. A Neuro oncology specific KPS and/or PS definition is warranted to allow more widely inclusion of patients with exclusive neurologic handicap.

OS3.4 Karnofsky and WHO performance scores of brain tumour patients may limit inclusion in protocols though they depend on clinician status