Jessica L Conway1, Emily Yurkowski2, Justin Glazier2, Quinn Gentles3, Allison Walter4, Gale Bowering5, Susan Curtis6, Devin Schellenberg6, Ross Halperin7, Vincent Lapointe4, Wayne Beckham8, Ivo A Olivotto9, Robert Anton Olson10. 1. BC Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Canada; Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Canada; University of Calgary and Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Canada. 2. Department of Science, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, Canada. 3. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 4. BC Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Canada. 5. BC Cancer Agency, Abbotsford Centre, Abbotsford, Canada. 6. BC Cancer Agency, Fraser Valley Centre, Surrey, Canada. 7. BC Cancer Agency, Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, Canada. 8. BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver Island Centre, Victoria, Canada. 9. University of Calgary and Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Canada. 10. Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Canada; BC Cancer Agency, Centre for the North, Prince George, Canada. Electronic address: rolson2@bccancer.bc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite randomized control trials showing equivalent efficacy between single-fraction (SF) and multiple-fraction (MF) radiation therapy (RT) for bone metastases (BoM), considerable variation in fractionation exists. We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following SF versus MF RT in a population-based cohort. METHODS: PROs were chosen to assess patients' perception of pain, function, and symptom frustration. Total score was the sum of the 3 questions. RESULTS: 968 patients completed pre and post-RT PROs, 35% (335) had complicated BoM. Overall, there were no differences in total score improvement (79% vs. 83%; p=0.13), nor for complicated BoM (77% vs. 84%; p=0.12), SFRT and MFRT respectively. On multivariate analysis no differences in improvement in total score were observed between SFRT and MFRT overall (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.02; p=0.06), nor for complicated BoM (OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.39-1.39; p=0.35). In the complicated BoM subset, pain complete response (CR) (19% vs. 33%; p=0.01) and functional improvement occurred more commonly in the MFRT group (69% vs. 81%; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Improvements in PROs for pain, function and symptom frustration were similar between SFRT and MFRT supporting the use of hypofractionated regimens. Using a simple, 3-question, telephone-based questionnaire to assess response to palliative RT is a feasible strategy to collect PROs.
BACKGROUND: Despite randomized control trials showing equivalent efficacy between single-fraction (SF) and multiple-fraction (MF) radiation therapy (RT) for bone metastases (BoM), considerable variation in fractionation exists. We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following SF versus MF RT in a population-based cohort. METHODS: PROs were chosen to assess patients' perception of pain, function, and symptom frustration. Total score was the sum of the 3 questions. RESULTS: 968 patients completed pre and post-RT PROs, 35% (335) had complicated BoM. Overall, there were no differences in total score improvement (79% vs. 83%; p=0.13), nor for complicated BoM (77% vs. 84%; p=0.12), SFRT and MFRT respectively. On multivariate analysis no differences in improvement in total score were observed between SFRT and MFRT overall (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.02; p=0.06), nor for complicated BoM (OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.39-1.39; p=0.35). In the complicated BoM subset, pain complete response (CR) (19% vs. 33%; p=0.01) and functional improvement occurred more commonly in the MFRT group (69% vs. 81%; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Improvements in PROs for pain, function and symptom frustration were similar between SFRT and MFRT supporting the use of hypofractionated regimens. Using a simple, 3-question, telephone-based questionnaire to assess response to palliative RT is a feasible strategy to collect PROs.
Authors: Sanders Chang; Peter May; Nathan E Goldstein; Juan Wisnivesky; Kenneth Rosenzweig; R Sean Morrison; Kavita V Dharmarajan Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Amanda Caissie; Robert Olson; Lisa Barbera; Jennifer O'Donnell; Carol-Anne Davis; Jennifer Croke; Louise Bird; John Kildea; Erika Brown; Michael Brundage; Michael Milosevic Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Roman O Kowalchuk; David Hillman; Thomas B Daniels; Carlos E Vargas; Jean-Claude M Rwigema; William W Wong; Bradley J Stish; Amylou C Dueck; Richard Choo Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-15
Authors: Costanza M Donati; Elena Nardi; Erika Galietta; Maria L Alfieri; Giambattista Siepe; Alice Zamagni; Milly Buwenge; Gabriella Macchia; Francesco Deodato; Savino Cilla; Lidia Strigari; Silvia Cammelli; Francesco Cellini; Alessio G Morganti Journal: Clin Med Insights Oncol Date: 2021-07-22