Search

Background: Mucositis is a common and highly impactful side effect of conventional and emerging cancer therapy and thus the subject of intense investigation. Although common practice, mucositis assessment is heterogeneously adopted and poorly guided, impacting evidence synthesis and translation. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Mucositis Study Group (MSG) therefore aimed to establish expert recommendations for how existing mucositis assessment tools should be used, in clinical care and trials contexts, to improve the consistency of mucositis assessment., Methods: This study was conducted over two stages (January 2022-July 2023). The first phase involved a survey to MASCC-MSG members (January 2022-May 2022), capturing current practices, challenges and preferences. These then informed the second phase, in which a set of initial recommendations were prepared and refined using the Delphi method (February 2023-May 2023). Consensus was defined as agreement on a parameter by >80% of respondents., Findings: Seventy-two MASCC-MSG members completed the first phase of the study (37 females, 34 males, mainly oral care specialists). High variability was noted in the use of mucositis assessment tools, with a high reliance on clinician assessment compared to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs, 47% vs 3%, 37% used a combination). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales were most commonly used to assess mucositis across multiple settings. Initial recommendations were reviewed by experienced MSG members and following two rounds of Delphi survey consensus was achieved in 91 of 100 recommendations. For example, in patients receiving chemotherapy, the recommended tool for clinician assessment in clinical practice is WHO for oral mucositis (89.5% consensus), and WHO or CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (85.7% consensus). The recommended PROM in clinical trials is OMD/WQ for oral mucositis (93.3% consensus), and PRO-CTCAE for gastrointestinal mucositis (83.3% consensus)., Interpretation: These new recommendations provide much needed guidance on mucositis assessment and may be applied in both clinical practice and research to streamline comparison and synthesis of global data sets, thus accelerating translation of new knowledge into clinical practice., Funding: No funding was received., Competing Interests: The authors report no potential conflicts of interests to declare., (© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The then-test, also known as the retrospective pre- and post-test design method, is a measurement used to evaluate response shift. The method requires patients to assess their previous health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and provide a retrospective judgement based on their current perspectives. The then-test, however, has been criticized for its reliability and validity. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the current literature for the use of the then-test for evaluating HRQoL in cancer patients and account for potential response shift effects., Methods: A literature search was conducted in May 2022 using MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsychINFO dated from 2005 to the time of the search. Studies were included if they (I) used the then-test and (II) involved a population of cancer patients (any cancer site)., Results: The literature search resulted in 16 studies, published between 2005 and 2020. All studies used the then-test to detect response shifts. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 questionnaires were the most common assessments used to evaluate HRQoL. Of the 16 articles, 5 exclusively reported on breast cancer, 5 reported on prostate cancer, and the remaining included all cancer sites. Most studies looked at patients undergoing a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. The mean differences between the retrospective assessment at both 3 and 6 months were significant for various quality of life (QoL) dimensions. Patients in some studies recalled their pretreatment HRQoL (then-score) as better than the pretreatment baseline scores and others reported them as worse, both confirming the existence of a response shift., Conclusions: Our review demonstrates that the then-test measurement tool has been commonly used for the detection of response shift. Newer measures for response shift have become more accepted; the then-test, if used, should be used with caution considering its limitations and the emergence of more advanced methods.

Purpose: Breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) benefit from local control. However, RT can give rise to increased fatigue, lowering quality of life. The aim of this study was to prospectively identify trends and risk factors in patient-reported fatigue associated with breast RT., Material and Methods: Patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) before, once per week during RT, up to 6 weeks after RT completion, and 1-3 months post RT. Patients were included in the analysis if the ESAS was completed before, at least once during, and at least once after RT., Results: A total of 651 patients were included. Fatigue scores increased significantly during weeks 1-3 (p < 0.001) and weeks 5-6 (p < 0.0001) during RT compared to baseline. After RT completion, fatigue scores did not change significantly compared to baseline. Mastectomy patients who received previous chemotherapy experienced significantly more fatigue compared to mastectomy patients without previous chemotherapy (p = 0.0002). Patients less than 50 (p = 0.002), 50-59 (p = 0.007), or 60-69 (p = 0.048) years of age at RT start were more likely to have higher proportions of moderate or severe fatigue compared to patients ≥ 70 years of age., Conclusions: Fatigue associated with breast irradiation increased up to 6 weeks during RT and returned to near baseline scores at 1-3 months post treatment. Given that fatigue was significant in mastectomy patients, further research is needed to reduce fatigue among this cohort, especially those who have received previous chemotherapy and younger patients who are receiving breast RT., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) commonly report pain, contributing to physical and emotional distress, and potentially resulting in poor quality of life. This study prospectively identified trends and risk factors in patient-reported pain associated with breast irradiation using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and a study-specific Skin Symptom Assessment (SSA)., Methods: Before RT and once per week during RT, patients completed the ESAS and SSA. Upon RT completion, patients were contacted via telephone to complete both assessments weekly for 6 weeks, and a final assessment was conducted 1-3 months post-RT. Only data from patients who had completed both assessments before, at least once during, and at least once after RT were included in our analysis., Results: A total of 426 patients provided data for the analysis. Overall acute pain increased significantly at week 1-2 (p < 0.0001), week 5 (p = 0.0011), and at 1-3 months (p < 0.0001) post-RT compared with baseline, and acute breast pain increased significantly at week 1 (p < 0.001) and week 2 (p = 0.0002) post-RT compared with baseline. Previous chemotherapy (adjuvant or neoadjuvant) in mastectomy patients was associated with increased overall pain compared with mastectomy patients without previous chemotherapy (p = 0.017). Younger patients (40-49 or 50-59 years of age) reported more overall pain (p = 0.0001, p = 0.038) and breast pain (p = 0.0003, p = 0.0038) compared with patients ≥ 60 years of age., Conclusions: Patient-reported pain associated with breast irradiation peaked 1 week after RT completion. Our findings provide support for closer monitoring of acute pain associated with breast RT in younger patients.