A Narrative Review on Karnofsky Performance Status in Patients With Brain Tumors: Should It Be Adjusted?
6 affiliations
- 1Department of General Medicine, Independent Researcher, Boston, USA.
- 2Department of Neurological Surgery, Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Granma, Manzanillo, CUB.
- 3Department of Internal Medicine, Community Medical Group, Lakeland, USA.
- 4Department of Surgery, Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, Miami, USA.
- 5Department of General Medicine, Independent Researcher, Vero Beach, USA.
- 6Center for Discovery and Innovation (CDI), Hackensack Meridian Health, Nutley, USA.
Abstract
The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) is one of the most widely used functional scales in oncology to assess patients' functional status, including their ability to work, perform self-care, and the need for assistance. Although its clinical utility is well established, KPS is generally applied uniformly across cancer populations, without specifically accounting for the distinct patterns of disability observed in patients with brain tumors. These patients may experience focal neurological deficits, cognitive impairment, and other neurological changes that can substantially affect functional status and may not be adequately captured by the current KPS framework. This narrative review examines the available evidence regarding the limitations of the standard KPS in patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors and considers the potential value of adjusting or complementing its use in clinical practice and research. A non-systematic literature review was conducted between August and September 2026 in PubMed and Google Scholar, using terms including "Karnofsky Performance Status," "KPS," "brain metastasis," "brain tumor," "neuro-oncology," "glioma," and "radiotherapy" in various combinations. Studies published in English were considered, with priority given, when possible, to studies published within the past five years and to those comparing KPS with neurological, cognitive, or patient-reported measures of function. The reviewed literature demonstrates substantial interobserver variability in KPS assignment, with kappa coefficients as low as 0.19-0.26 in studies reporting poor agreement. Discordance was also identified between clinician-assigned KPS and objective cognitive impairment, with up to 36% of patients considered to have good KPS scores showing clinically relevant cognitive dysfunction. In addition, medical decision-making capacity may be impaired despite high KPS scores, with only 46% of patients with KPS 90-100 classified as capable using a standardized instrument. Discordance between KPS and patient-reported outcomes was also reported. These limitations have prompted the development and use of complementary tools, including the Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale and brain tumor-specific assessments of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). Overall, the KPS retains important prognostic and practical value; however, the available evidence supports complementing its use in neuro-oncology with objective neurological assessment, brief cognitive screening, and, when possible, patient- or caregiver-reported measures. Functional status should also be assessed dynamically over time, avoiding anchoring the patient's overall functional assessment to a single KPS value, rather than using KPS as the sole and sufficient measure of functional status.
Related
- Predictors of Favourable Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Narrative Review
- Nutritional Interventions for Patients with Intermittent Claudication: Mechanisms, Clinical Implications, and the Case for Exercise-Adjunct Strategies: A Narrative Review
- Sarcopenia in Hospitalized Patients: A Critical Narrative Review of Diagnostic and Nutritional Management Approaches
- Bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with surgically altered anatomy: a narrative review and institutional protocol
- Anti-Obesity Medications Versus Metabolic Bariatric Surgery as Pathways to Heart Transplant Eligibility in LVAD-Supported Patients: A Narrative Review
BibTeX
@article{eng2026narrative,
title = {{A Narrative Review on Karnofsky Performance Status in Patients With Brain Tumors: Should It Be Adjusted?}},
author = {Idalberto L Fernandez Eng and Luis A Guzman Blanco and Manuel A Guerra Guerrero and Carlos A Crespo Bao and Leydis L Marquez Lazo and Claudia Pallasa Dominguez},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.117566},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42996626},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - A Narrative Review on Karnofsky Performance Status in Patients With Brain Tumors: Should It Be Adjusted?
AU - Idalberto L Fernandez Eng
AU - Luis A Guzman Blanco
AU - Manuel A Guerra Guerrero
AU - Carlos A Crespo Bao
AU - Leydis L Marquez Lazo
AU - Claudia Pallasa Dominguez
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.117566
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42996626
AB - The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) is one of the most widely used functional scales in oncology to assess patients' functional status, including their ability to work, perform self-care, and the need for assistance. Although its clinical utility is well established, KPS is generally applied uniformly across cancer populations, without specifically accounting for the distinct patterns of disability observed in patients with brain tumors. These patients may experience focal neurological deficits, cognitive impairment, and other neurological changes that can substantially affect functional status and may not be adequately captured by the current KPS framework. This narrative review examines the available evidence regarding the limitations of the standard KPS in patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors and considers the potential value of adjusting or complementing its use in clinical practice and research. A non-systematic literature review was conducted between August and September 2026 in PubMed and Google Scholar, using terms including "Karnofsky Performance Status," "KPS," "brain metastasis," "brain tumor," "neuro-oncology," "glioma," and "radiotherapy" in various combinations. Studies published in English were considered, with priority given, when possible, to studies published within the past five years and to those comparing KPS with neurological, cognitive, or patient-reported measures of function. The reviewed literature demonstrates substantial interobserver variability in KPS assignment, with kappa coefficients as low as 0.19-0.26 in studies reporting poor agreement. Discordance was also identified between clinician-assigned KPS and objective cognitive impairment, with up to 36% of patients considered to have good KPS scores showing clinically relevant cognitive dysfunction. In addition, medical decision-making capacity may be impaired despite high KPS scores, with only 46% of patients with KPS 90-100 classified as capable using a standardized instrument. Discordance between KPS and patient-reported outcomes was also reported. These limitations have prompted the development and use of complementary tools, including the Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale and brain tumor-specific assessments of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). Overall, the KPS retains important prognostic and practical value; however, the available evidence supports complementing its use in neuro-oncology with objective neurological assessment, brief cognitive screening, and, when possible, patient- or caregiver-reported measures. Functional status should also be assessed dynamically over time, avoiding anchoring the patient's overall functional assessment to a single KPS value, rather than using KPS as the sole and sufficient measure of functional status.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -