Tonje A Sande1, Angela C Scott2, Barry J A Laird3, Hong I Wan4, Susan M Fleetwood-Walker5, Stein Kaasa6, Pål Klepstad7, Rory Mitchell8, Gordon D Murray9, Lesley A Colvin10, Marie T Fallon2. 1. European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. Electronic address: tonje.laugsand@ntnu.no. 2. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, United Kingdom. 3. European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, United Kingdom. 4. Pfizer Biotherapeutics, Translational Medicine and Molecular Medicine Clinical Research, Collegeville, United States. 5. University of Edinburgh, Royal Dick Vet School, United Kingdom. 6. European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, University Hospital of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway. 7. European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Technology and Science (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; St. Olavs Hospital, University Hospital of Trondheim, Department of Anaesthesiology and Emergency Medicine, Trondheim, Norway. 8. University of Edinburgh, Centre for Integrative Physiology,Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 9. University of Edinburgh, Centre for Population Health Sciences, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 10. University of Edinburgh, Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An objective measure of pain relief may add important information to patients' self assessment, particularly after a treatment. The study aims were to determine whether measures of physical activity and/or gait can be used in characterizing cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) and whether these biomarkers are sensitive to treatment response, in patients receiving radiotherapy (XRT) for CIBP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were assessed before (baseline) and 6-8weeks after XRT (follow up). The following assessments were done: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), activPAL™ activity meter, and GAITRite® electronic walkway (measure of gait). Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney and Pearson statistical analyses were done. RESULTS: Sixty patients were assessed at baseline; median worst pain was 7 and walking interference was 5. At follow up 42 patients were assessed. BPI worst pain, average pain, walking interference and total functional interference all improved (p<0.001). An improvement in functional interference correlated with aspects of physical activity (daily hours standing r=0.469, p=0.002) and gait (cadence r=0.341, p=0.03). The activPAL and GAITRite parameters did not change following XRT (p>0.05). In responder analyses there were no differences in activPAL and GAITRite parameters (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity and gait allow a characterization of the functional aspects of CIBP, but not in the evaluation of XRT.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An objective measure of pain relief may add important information to patients' self assessment, particularly after a treatment. The study aims were to determine whether measures of physical activity and/or gait can be used in characterizing cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) and whether these biomarkers are sensitive to treatment response, in patients receiving radiotherapy (XRT) for CIBP. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients were assessed before (baseline) and 6-8weeks after XRT (follow up). The following assessments were done: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), activPAL™ activity meter, and GAITRite® electronic walkway (measure of gait). Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney and Pearson statistical analyses were done. RESULTS: Sixty patients were assessed at baseline; median worst pain was 7 and walking interference was 5. At follow up 42 patients were assessed. BPI worst pain, average pain, walking interference and total functional interference all improved (p<0.001). An improvement in functional interference correlated with aspects of physical activity (daily hours standing r=0.469, p=0.002) and gait (cadence r=0.341, p=0.03). The activPAL and GAITRite parameters did not change following XRT (p>0.05). In responder analyses there were no differences in activPAL and GAITRite parameters (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity and gait allow a characterization of the functional aspects of CIBP, but not in the evaluation of XRT.
Authors: Charlotte L Edwardson; Elisabeth A H Winkler; Danielle H Bodicoat; Tom Yates; Melanie J Davies; David W Dunstan; Genevieve N Healy Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 7.179