| ARCHETYPE ID | openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.neurologic_assessment_in_neuro_oncology_scale.v0 |
|---|---|
| Concept | Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale |
| Description | The NANO scale provides an objective clinician-reported outcome of neurologic function with high inter-observer agreement. It is designed to combine with radiographic assessment to provide an overall assessment of outcome for neuro-oncology patients in clinical trials and in daily practice. Furthermore, it complements existing patient-reported outcomes and cognition testing to combine for a global clinical outcome assessment of well-being among brain tumor patients. |
| Use | Use to record the result for each component parameter for the NANO-scale and to calculate the total score. |
| Purpose | To record the result for each component parameter for the NANO-scale and to calculate the total score. |
| References | Derived from: <Add reference to original resource here> Nayak L, DeAngelis LM, Brandes AA, Peereboom DM, Galanis E, Lin NU, Soffietti R, Macdonald DR, Chamberlain M, Perry J, Jaeckle K, Mehta M, Stupp R, Muzikansky A, Pentsova E, Cloughesy T, Iwamoto FM, Tonn JC, Vogelbaum MA, Wen PY, van den Bent MJ, Reardon DA. The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale: a tool to assess neurologic function for integration into the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria. Neuro Oncol. 2017 May 1;19(5):625-635. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nox029. Review. PubMed PMID: 28453751; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5464449. |
| Copyright | © openEHR Foundation, Nasjonal IKT HF, openEHR Foundation |
| Authors | Author name: Bjørn Næss Organisation: DIPS AS Email: bna@dips.no Date originally authored: 2023-04-21 |
| Other Details Language | Author name: Bjørn Næss Organisation: DIPS AS Email: bna@dips.no Date originally authored: 2023-04-21 |
| Other Details (Language Independent) |
|
| Keywords | neurologic function, NANO, brain tumor, assessment, CNS, neuro-oncology, outcome |
| Lifecycle | in_development |
| UID | 82886303-39f6-4887-aab3-1bde549a5b28 |
| Language used | en |
| Citeable Identifier | 1013.1.2280 |
| Revision Number | 0.0.1-alpha |
| events | |
| Any event | |
| data | |
| Gait | Gait: Walking is ideally assessed by at least 10 steps. 0: Normal 1: Abnormal but walks without assistance 2: Abnormal and requires assistance (companion, cane, walker, etc.) 3: Unable to walk |
| Strength | Strength: Test each limb separately. Recommend assess proximal (above knee or elbow) and distal (below knee or elbow) major muscle groups. Score should reflect worse performing area. Patients with baseline level 3 function in one major muscle group/limb can be scored based on assessment of other major muscle group/limbs. 0: Normal 1: Movement present but decreased against resistance 2: Movement present but none against resistance 3: No movement |
| Ataxia(upper extremity) | Ataxia(upper extremity): Non-evaluable if strength is compromised. Trunk/lower extermities assessed by gait domain. Particulary important for patients with brainstem and cerebellar tumors. Score based on test respons of at least 3 attempts. 0: Able to finger to nose touch without difficulty 1: Able to finger to nose touch but difficult 2: Unable to finger to nose touch |
| Sensation | Sensation: Recommend evaluating major body areas separately (face, limbs, trunk). Score should reflect worse performing area. Sensory modality includes but not limited to light touch, pinprick, temperature and proprioception. Patients with baseline level 2 function in one major body area can be scored based on assessment of other major body areas. 0: Normal 1: Decreased but aware of sensory modality 2: Unaware of sensory modality |
| Visual fields | Visual fields: Patients who require corrective lenses should be evaluated while wearing corrective lenses. Each eye should be evaluated and score should reflect the worst performing eye. 0: Normal 1: Inconsistent or equivocal parital hemianopsia (≥ quadrantopsia) 2: Consistent or equivocal partial hemianopsia (≥ quadrantopsia) 3: Complete hemianopsia |
| Facial strength | Facial strength: Particularly important for brainstem tumors. Weakness includes nasolabial fold flattening, asymmetric smile and difficulty elevating eyebrows. 0: Normal 1: Mild/moderate weakness 2: Severe facial weakness |
| Language | Language: Asses based on spoken speech. Non-verbal cues or writing should not be included. 0: Normal 1: Abnormal but easily conveys meaning to examiner [Includes word finding difficulty; few paraphasic errors/neologisms/word substitutions;but able to form sentences (full/broken)] 2: Abnormal and difficulty conveying meaning to examiner [Includes liability to form sentences (<4 words per phrase/sentence); limited word output; fluent but "empty" speech.] 3: Abnormal. If verbal, unable to delivery meaning to the examiner OR non-verbal (mute/global aphasia) |
| Level of consciousness | Level of consciousness: 0: Normal 1: Drowsy (easily arousable) 2: Somnolent (difficult to arouse) 3: Unarousable/coma |
| Behavior | Behavior: Particulary important for frontal lobe tumors. Alteration includes but is not limited to apathy, disinhibition and confusion. Consider subclinical seizures for significant alteration. 0: Normal 1: Mild/moderate alteration 2: Severe alteration |
| Total sum of score | |
| Other contributors | |
| Translators |