ECOG to Karnofsky Converter — Performance Status Scales
Convert between the ECOG (Zubrod/WHO) performance status 0–5 and the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) 0–100 used in oncology — with the description of each grade and the functional group.
How it works
Conventional equivalence: ECOG 0 = KPS 90–100; ECOG 1 = KPS 70–80; ECOG 2 = KPS 50–60; ECOG 3 = KPS 30–40; ECOG 4 = KPS 10–20; ECOG 5 = KPS 0 (dead).
Performance status summarises how well a person with cancer can carry out daily activities and is a key factor in prognosis, trial eligibility and fitness for chemotherapy. The ECOG scale (Oken et al., American Journal of Clinical Oncology 1982; also called Zubrod or WHO) has six grades, while the Karnofsky Performance Status (Karnofsky & Burchenal, 1949) runs from 100 to 0 in steps of 10. The mapping between them is approximate — studies show the two agree well at the extremes but less so in the middle grades.
Worked example
ECOG 1 — restricted in strenuous activity but walking about and able to do light work — corresponds to KPS 70–80; at its upper end (KPS 80) it falls in the functional group “able to carry on normal activity and work”.
Sources: ECOG-ACRIN — ECOG Performance Status Scale · ePROVIDE (Mapi) — ECOG Performance Status Scale
Frequently asked questions
What does ECOG 2 mean?
The person walks about and manages all self-care but cannot work, and is up and about for more than half of waking hours. It corresponds to KPS 50–60, and many chemotherapy trials accept ECOG 0–2.
Is a higher Karnofsky score better?
Yes — KPS 100 is normal function with no evidence of disease, while lower numbers mean more dependence. For ECOG it is the opposite: 0 is fully active and higher grades are worse.
Why do oncologists care about performance status?
It strongly predicts survival and tolerance of treatment. Patients with ECOG 3–4 generally have higher toxicity and less benefit from chemotherapy, so treatment is often tailored or focused on comfort.
Related calculators
Clinical decision tool for education and for use by trained clinicians alongside clinical judgement — not a diagnosis and not a substitute for medical assessment. Formulas and cut-offs come from the cited sources; local protocols may differ.