Search

Purpose: To explore the age difference in response and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer having bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy. Methods: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life (QOL) Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22), EORTC QOL Core-15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL), and Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) before a single 8-Gy radiation treatment, on days 10 and 42 after treatment. Patient demographics, performance status, analgesic consumption, BM22, C15, and DSQ were compared with multivariant analysis between patients under 75 years and 75 years and older. Multiple linear regression models were used to assess the differences between age-groups, adjusting for baseline demographics and primary disease sites. Results: There were 298 patients (170 male) with 209 (70%) less than 75 years of age. Most common primary cancer sites include lung, prostate, and breast. At baseline, younger patients had better performance status, consumed more analgesic, and reported worse scores in nausea, insomnia, and functional interference, while older patients more commonly had prostate cancer. There were no significant differences in the incidence of radiation-induced pain flare; response to radiation; changes from baseline for BM22, C15-PAL; and DSQ, nor overall survival at day 42 between the 2 groups. Responders to radiation in the elderly group reported better improvement in physical and emotional domains when compared with nonresponders. Conclusions: In patients with cancer having bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy, there was no significant difference in general with age in response to radiation and patient-reported outcomes. Palliative radiotherapy should be offered to elderly patients when needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aggressive medical management of cancer patients at the end of life (EOL) is an indicator of health services quality. We evaluated the variations in EOL cancer therapy utilization and in acute care hospital deaths across different types of cancer within the setting of a regionalized cancer program.Methods: Intravenous chemotherapy and radiotherapy use within the last 14 and 30 days of life was identified through the Alberta Cancer Registry and then verified by chart review for cancer decedents residing within 50 km of the Tom Baker Cancer Centre between 2003 and 2010. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine variations in outcomes of interest by cancer, adjusting for age and other factors in prespecified models.Results: Of the 9863 decedents included in the study, 3.0 and 6.3 % received chemotherapy within the final 14 and 30 days of life, respectively. In multivariable model, breast, hematological, and gynecological cancers were at least 2.5 times more likely than other cancers to undergo EOL chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was given to 4.6 % of decedents within 14 days of death, but only 66 % (359/542 courses) were completed as prescribed. Acute care admission within 14 days of death was seen in 44 % of decedents and 34 % died in the hospital.Conclusions: In our regional cancer program, the intensity of cancer therapies near the end of life varied considerably across different cancer types. Such variations may be unwarranted. A substantial proportion of cancer deaths occurred in the acute care setting. Greater efforts to integrate palliative care in outpatient cancer services are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives:To compare and contrast the definitions of primary treatment endpoints in randomized studies of dose-fractionation schedules for treating bone metastases and to identify basic characteristics of treatment endpoint that may require consensus among investigators. Methods:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various dose-fractionation schedules for painful bone metastases, published between 1980 and 1999, and on-going trials whose protocols were available, were systematically reviewed based on the following features of the primary treatment endpoint: (i) degree of pain relief; (ii) timing of the pain response assessment; (iii) effect of co-interventions on pain relief; (iv) the reduction of analgesic as a treatment response; and (v) quantification of response duration. Results:Ten published RCTs (each sampled over 100 patients), plus two current trial protocols were reviewed. Five of the 12 studies defined any reduction in pain score as the primary endpoint. Three trials defined response at pre-determined time points, whereas eight studies attributed pain improvement at any time during follow-up to the effect of radiotherapy. No trial incorporated effect of systemic treatments on response. Only two trials incorporated analgesic scores into the primary endpoint criteria, although several trials reported results of combined pain and analgesic relief. Eight trials reported duration of response. Three provided some estimation of duration with respect to survival: two of them employing actuarial time to pain progression, and one calculated the ratio of pain response to median survival duration (percent net relief). Quality of life was measured in four of 12 studies, as secondary endpoint. Conclusion:Although available data suggest similarity in pain relief among various dose-fractionation scedules, accurate and consistent description of the degree of benefit from radiotherapy is lacking. While pain relief is a consistent primary treatment goal among randomized trials, a consensus on several important features of treatment endpoint is needed in order to establish common grounds for future trials in palliative radiotherapy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Canadian health professionals have expressed a need to develop skills to respond to inquiries about and requests for medical assistance in dying following die passage of new legislation in June 2016. In Alberta, the Department of Psychosocial and Rehabilitation Oncology at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre collaborated with local experts to provide information, answer questions and practice conversations around medical assistance in dying. This article describes the knowledge needs expressed prior to the workshop, the workshop content, and postworkshop feedback from participants around training needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Patient's gender and age may influence physicians in prescribing palliative radiotherapy. The purpose of this secondary analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.20 was to explore the gender and age differences in pain and patient reported outcomes in cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing re-irradiation., Materials and Methods: Response to radiation was evaluated using the International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (C30) before and 2 months after re-irradiation., Results: A total of 847 patients were analyzed. At baseline, men had more dyspnea, and mild pain. Older patients consumed less analgesic. More women reported clinically significant improvement in mood and enjoyment of life in the BPI after radiation. Similarly, younger patients reported better improvement in enjoyment of life. There were no significant gender or age differences in overall survival, response to radiation, or in C30 scores at 2 months., Conclusion: Similar benefit in terms of pain relief was observed across all patient groups. Cancer patients with bone metastases should be offered palliative re-irradiation irrespective of gender or age., Trial Registration: NCT00080912; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00080912., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gender differences may contribute to variations in disease presentations and health outcomes. To explore the gender difference in pain and patient reported outcomes in cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy on the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) SC.23 randomized trial., Methods: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QOL) bone metastases module (QLQ-BM22) and EORTC QOL Core-15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) before treatment and at days 10 and 42 after a single 8 Gy radiation treatment. Patient demographics, performance status, analgesic consumption, BM22 and C15 were compared between males and females using the 2-sample t-test for continuous variables or the Chi-squared test for categorical variables. Multiple linear regression models were used to check the difference between gender groups adjusting for the baseline demographics and primary disease sites., Results: There were 298 patients (170 male, 128 female) with median age of 69 years. The most common primary cancer sites were lung, prostate and breast. At baseline, there were no differences in BM22 and C15 scores, except a worse nausea and vomiting score (P=0.03) in females on the C15. In patients with moderate baseline worst pain scores (WPS), females reported worse scores in painful sites of BM22. At day 42, there was no significant difference in response to radiotherapy. Among the responders, females reported better improvement in emotional aspect., Conclusions: In cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy, the majority of symptom presentations, patient reported outcomes, and response to radiation was not significantly different between genders., Trial Registration: NCT01248585.

Purpose: Quality of life (QOL) can be compromised in patients with bone metastases, and validated QOL instruments are required to accurately measure QOL outcomes in this population. This study investigated the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module with the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL instrument in bone metastases., Methods: The studied patients underwent palliative radiotherapy to bone metastases in the randomized NCIC CTG SC 23 trial. Multi-trait scaling analysis was performed to determine convergent and divergent validity among scales. Pearson coefficients were calculated to determine the correlation between items of the two instruments. The clinical validity and responsiveness of the QLQ-BM22 was tested by known group comparisons of different performance status and response to radiotherapy., Results: 204 patients completed both questionnaires at baseline and 42day follow-up. On multi-trait scaling analysis, there was mixed evidence of construct validity (explained by the questionnaire format and population characteristics). There was little correlation between most QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL items (except for conceptually related scales) validating their complementary nature. There were statistically significant differences in all QLQ-BM22 scale scores in groups with KPS<80 vs. KPS⩾80 and three out of four QLQ-BM22 scale scores in "responders" vs. "non-responders" to radiotherapy. In patients who responded to radiotherapy, there were statistically significant differences in all QLQ-BM22 scale scores between baseline and follow-up., Conclusion: This study further validates the use of the QLQ-BM22 as a robust and sensitive instrument to assess QOL in patients with bone metastases treated with palliative radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To establish a survival prediction model in the setting of a randomized trial of re-irradiation for painful bone metastases., Methods: Data were randomly divided into training and testing sets with an approximately 3:2 ratio. Baseline factors of gender, primary cancer site, KPS, worst-pain score and age were included with backward variable selection to derive a model using the training set. A partial score was assigned by dividing the value of each statistically significant regression coefficient by the smallest statistically significant regression coefficient. The survival prediction score (SPS) was obtained by adding together partial scores for the variables that were statistically significant. Three risk groups were modelled., Results: The training set included 460 patients and the testing set 351 patients. Only KPS and primary cancer site reached the 5%-significance level. Summing up the partial scores assigned to KPS (90-100, 0; 70-80, 1; 50-60, 2) and primary cancer site (breast, 0; prostate, 1.3; other, 2.6; lung, 3) totalled the SPS. The 1/3 and 2/3 percentiles of the SPS were 2 and 3.6. For the testing set, the median survival of the 3 groups was not reached, 11.3 (95% C.I. 8.5 - not reached) and 5.2 months (95% C.I. 3.7-6.5). The 3, 6 and 12 month survival rates for the worst group were 64.4% (95% C.I. 55.3-72.1%), 43.0% (95% C.I. 34.0-51.8%) and 19.7% (95% C.I. 12.4-28.1%) respectively, similar to that in the training set., Conclusion: This survival prediction model will assist in choosing dose fractionation. We recommend a single 8 Gy in the worst group identified., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To estimate the late morbidity of a novel, hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy schedule of 55 Gy in 16 fractions (4 fractions/week, 3.4 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer., Methods and Materials: A multi-center phase 2 study enrolled seventy-three patients between September 2004 and June 2006. After insertion of fiducial gold markers, they were treated with image-guidance (IGRT) using conformal techniques with intensity-modulation, if necessary, and then followed every 6 months for toxicity rating and PSA. Patient reported outcomes were collected yearly. Median follow up was 4.6 years., Results: At 4 years post-radiotherapy, the cumulative incidence of combined urinary and bowel grade 3 toxicity was 7% (95% CI 3-16%) and grade 2+ was 33% (95% CI 24-46%). All except two patients recovered from their grade 3 events. Patient-reported reduction of function was most pronounced at year two for urinary function (mean -7, SD 16), and at year one for bowel function (mean -7, SD 21). The cumulative incidence of biochemical (PSA nadir+2) or biopsy-proven relapse at 4 years was 9% (95% CI 4-18%)., Conclusions: Hypofractionated radiotherapy is clinically feasible and more convenient than conventional schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer. Phase 3 multicenter studies are on-going (NCT00126165)., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To estimate the prevalence of pain with neuropathic features among patients with metastatic bone pain and to assess differences between patients with and without neuropathic features by pain severity, functional interference, and quality-of-life (QOL) measures., Patients and Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey of consecutive patients with symptomatic bone metastases was conducted between December 2006 and March 2008 at a comprehensive cancer center. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Self-Reported Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Statistical associations between pain with neuropathic features and other measures were explored., Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled. Seventeen percent of patients (95% CI, 10% to 24%) had positive S-LANSS scores suggesting pain with neuropathic features. Mean worst pain and mean interference scores were 7.2 (standard deviation [SD], 2.0) and 5.8 (SD, 2.5), respectively. EORTC QLQ-C30 global QOL, function, and symptom scores were 42 (SD, 24), 52 (SD, 20), and 46 (SD, 17), respectively. Patients with neuropathic features had a higher BPI worst pain score than patients without neuropathic features (8.3 v 7.0, respectively; P = .016). Corticosteroid use, oral morphine equivalent dosing, and site of bone pain were not associated with neuropathic features., Conclusion: Some patients with bone metastases manifest bone pain with distinguishable neuropathic features, and these patients reported greater pain intensity. Additional work is required to validate the S-LANSS against clinical criteria for neuropathic pain in this context and to explore the unmet pain management needs in this population.

Purpose: External beam radiotherapy (RT) is commonly indicated for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, but there is evidence of underutilization of this treatment modality in palliative care for cancer populations. This study was conducted to investigate factors that influenced the use of palliative RT services at a regional comprehensive cancer center., Methods and Materials: A cohort of patients with radiographically confirmed bone metastases and first-time users of palliative RT between 2003 and 2005 was retrospectively reviewed from the time of initial diagnosis of bone metastases to death or last follow-up. Type of radiation treatment service provider used (rapid access or routine access) and patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors were analyzed for their influences on the number of treatment courses given over the duration of disease., Results: A total of 887 patients received 1,354 courses of palliative RT for bone metastases at a median interval of 4.0 months between courses. Thirty-three percent of patients required more than one RT course. Increased age and travel distance reduced the likelihood and number of treatment courses, while service through a rapid access clinic was independently associated with an increase in subsequent use of palliative RT., Conclusions: A rapid access service model for palliative RT facilitated access to RT. Travel distance and other factors remained substantial barriers to use of palliative RT services. The pattern of practice suggests an unmet need for symptom control in patients with bone metastases., (2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bone metastases are prevalent, painful, and carry a poorer prognosis for pain control compared with other cancer pain syndromes. Standard tools to measure pain have not been validated in this patient population, and particular subgroups with more challenging symptoms have yet to be identified and studied. The objectives of this study were 1) to validate the psychometric properties of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and its Pain and Interference subscales in patients with clinically significant metastatic bone pain requiring palliative radiotherapy and 2) to examine differences in BPI subscales among predefined subgroups of bone metastases patients. A total of 258 patients evaluated and treated through a rapid access radiation therapy clinic between July 2002, and November 2006, were included in the analysis. High internal consistency of the BPI subscales of Pain, Activity interference, and Affect interference was demonstrated by Cronbach's alpha between 0.81 and 0.89. Removing sleep interference improved model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. The BPI revealed an alarming pattern in patients with lower body metastases, who reported substantial interference of activity even though pain levels were mild or moderate. Such patients may require prompt clinical attention to better meet their needs. Finally, the allocation of interference from sleep within the BPI framework, in our population of pain patients, requires further study., (Copyright 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To reach a consensus on a set of optimal endpoint measurements for future external beam radiotherapy trials in bone metastases., Methods: An International Bone Metastases Consensus Working Party invited principal investigators and individuals with a recognized interest in bone metastases to participate in the two surveys and a panel meeting on their preference of choice of optimal endpoints., Results: Consensus has been reached on the following: (a) eligibility criteria for future trials; (b) pain and analgesic assessments; (c) radiation techniques; (d) follow-up and timing of assessments; (e) parameters at follow-up; (f) endpoints; (g) re-irradiation; and (h) statistical analysis., Conclusions: Based on the available literature and the clinical experience of the working party members, an acceptable set of endpoints has been agreed upon for future clinical trials to promote consistency in reporting. It is intended that the consensus will be re-examined every 5 years. Areas of further research were identified.