Search

Purpose: Validated tools for evaluating quality of life (QOL) in patients with bone metastases include the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL modules. A statistically significant difference in metric scores may not be clinically significant. To aid in their interpretation, we performed analyses to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these QOL instruments., Methods: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine the MCID among patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized phase III trial. For the anchor-based approach, overall QOL as measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL module was used as the anchor and only the subscales with moderate or better correlation were used for subsequent MCID analysis. In the anchor-based approach, patients were classified as improved, stable or deteriorated by the change in the overall QOL score from baseline to follow-up after 42 days. The MCID and confidence interval was then calculated for all subscales. In the distribution-based approach, the MCID was expressed as a proportion of the standard deviation and standard error measurement from the subscale score distribution., Results: A total of 204 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. Only the dyspnea and insomnia subscales did not have at least moderate correlation with the overall QOL anchor. Using the anchor-based approach, 10/11 subscales had an MCID score significantly different than 0 for improvement and 3/11 subscales had a significant MCID score for deterioration. The magnitude of MCID scores was higher for improvement in comparison with deterioration. For improvement, the anchor-based approach showed good agreement with the distribution-based approach when using 0.5 SD as the MCID. However, there was greater lack of agreement between these approaches for deterioration., Conclusion: We present the MCID scores for the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL QOL instruments. The results of this study can guide clinicians in the interpretation of these instruments., Clinical Trials Registry: NCT01248585.

Background: Pain flare occurs after palliative radiotherapy, and dexamethasone has shown potential for prevention of such flare. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone with that of placebo in terms of reduction of incidence of pain flare., Methods: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients from 23 Canadian centres were randomly allocated (1:1) with a web-based system and minimisation algorithm to receive either two 4 mg dexamethasone tablets or two placebo tablets taken orally at least 1 h before the start of radiation treatment (a single 8 Gy dose to bone metastases; day 0) and then every day for 4 days after radiotherapy (days 1-4). Patients were eligible if they had a non-haematological malignancy and bone metastasis (or metastases) corresponding to the clinically painful area or areas. Patients reported their worst pain scores and opioid analgesic intake before treatment and daily for 10 days after radiation treatment. They completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life QLQ-C15-PAL, the bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22), and the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire at baseline, and at days 10 and 42 after radiation treatment. Pain flare was defined as at least a two-point increase on a scale of 0-10 in the worst pain score with no decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% or greater increase in analgesic intake with no decrease in the worst pain score from days 0-10, followed by a return to baseline levels or below. Primary analysis of incidence of pain flare was by intention-to-treat (patients with missing primary data were classified as having pain flare). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248585, and is completed., Findings: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec 11, 2014, 298 patients were enrolled. 39 (26%) of 148 patients randomly allocated to the dexamethasone group and 53 (35%) of 150 patients in the placebo group had a pain flare (difference 8·9%, lower 95% confidence bound 0·0, one-sided p=0·05). Two grade 3 and one grade 4 biochemical hyperglycaemic events occurred in the dexamethasone group (without known clinical effects) compared with none in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were bone pain (61 [41%] of 147 vs 68 [48%] of 143), fatigue (58 [39%] of 147 vs 49 [34%] of 143), constipation (47 [32%] of 147 vs 37 [26%] of 143), and nausea (34 [23%] of 147 vs 34 [24%] of 143), most of which were mild grade 1 or 2., Interpretation: Dexamethasone reduces radiation-induced pain flare in the treatment of painful bone metastases., Funding: The NCIC CTG's programmatic grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To explore patients' and caregivers' views on follow-up care after palliative radiotherapy., Methodology: A qualitative study design was used. Patients receiving palliative radiotherapy or their caregivers were eligible to participate following informed consent. Participants attended a single interview. The interviews were guided by a set of open-ended questions designed to explore the participants' understanding of the purpose and preference for follow-up care after palliative radiotherapy. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes were identified in the transcripts and described with consideration of the individual participant's demographics and cancer experiences., Results: Nine participants (five patients and four caregivers) of eleven approached consented, and were interviewed. The median age of the participants was 60 years (range, 47-80 years). All participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤1. Median time from the patient's initial cancer diagnosis to the study interview was 4.5 years (range, 3-35 years). Follow-up appointments were expected to provide an evaluation of treatment outcomes, complications, and current situations. Scheduled appointments were appreciated by some as they provided a dedicated opportunity to ask questions of their health care team. The receiving radiation oncology team's contact information was felt to be helpful because the patients could ask treatment-related questions. Many participants were comfortable with and expected the medical oncologist or referral physician to provide follow-up care for patients who received palliative radiotherapy., Conclusions: Palliative patients have diverse physical and emotional care needs. Within this study sample, participants valued follow-up because it provided an evaluation of their clinical status. They also viewed their established primary oncologist as the most appropriate person to provide follow-up care, supplemented by an efficient way of contacting their radiation oncology team as needed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)