BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess the correlation between the LENT (late effects on normal tissue) SOMA (subjective objective management analytic) system and the Franco-Italian glossary scores of late morbidity in cervical cancer patients treated with radiation, and to compare the ability of the scoring systems to detect differences between radiation treatment groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was retrospective. Patients, invited to take part in the study, had radiotherapy for cervical cancer and had a minimum of 3 years follow-up with no evidence of recurrence. One hundred patients agreed to take part. LENT subjective data were obtained using a patient questionnaire approach in order to complete the scales as published. The LENT objective, management and Franco-Italian glossary scores were obtained by a physician. Correlations between scores and differences between treatment groups were examined using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: The average LENT SOMA scores had a greater resolution than the maximum scores, and using the maximum score alone underestimated treatment morbidity. The Franco-Italian glossary scores correlated strongly with the LENT objective scores (rho=0.61, P<0.0005), and less strongly with the LENT subjective scores (rho=0.45, P<0.0005). Significant differences in morbidity between the radiation treatment groups were measured using both the LENT SOMA system and the Franco-Italian glossary. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum and average LENT scores should be reported for each subsite. The LENT objective scores correlated well with the scores obtained using the established Franco-Italian glossary, but the LENT system provided additional information on subjective treatment effects. Both systems were able to measure significant differences in morbidity between radiation treatment groups. In conclusion, the LENT SOMA system is a valid and comprehensive approach for scoring the late normal tissue effects of radiotherapy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess the correlation between the LENT (late effects on normal tissue) SOMA (subjective objective management analytic) system and the Franco-Italian glossary scores of late morbidity in cervical cancerpatients treated with radiation, and to compare the ability of the scoring systems to detect differences between radiation treatment groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was retrospective. Patients, invited to take part in the study, had radiotherapy for cervical cancer and had a minimum of 3 years follow-up with no evidence of recurrence. One hundred patients agreed to take part. LENT subjective data were obtained using a patient questionnaire approach in order to complete the scales as published. The LENT objective, management and Franco-Italian glossary scores were obtained by a physician. Correlations between scores and differences between treatment groups were examined using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: The average LENT SOMA scores had a greater resolution than the maximum scores, and using the maximum score alone underestimated treatment morbidity. The Franco-Italian glossary scores correlated strongly with the LENT objective scores (rho=0.61, P<0.0005), and less strongly with the LENT subjective scores (rho=0.45, P<0.0005). Significant differences in morbidity between the radiation treatment groups were measured using both the LENT SOMA system and the Franco-Italian glossary. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum and average LENT scores should be reported for each subsite. The LENT objective scores correlated well with the scores obtained using the established Franco-Italian glossary, but the LENT system provided additional information on subjective treatment effects. Both systems were able to measure significant differences in morbidity between radiation treatment groups. In conclusion, the LENT SOMA system is a valid and comprehensive approach for scoring the late normal tissue effects of radiotherapy.
Authors: P Georg; A Boni; A Ghabuous; G Goldner; M P Schmid; D Georg; R Pötter; W Dörr Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: H Jervoise N Andreyev; Susan E Davidson; Catherine Gillespie; William H Allum; Edwin Swarbrick Journal: Gut Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 23.059