D Rodin1, B Banihashemi2, L Wang3, A Lau3, S Harris4, W Levin5, R Dinniwell5, B A Millar5, C Chung5, N Laperriere5, A Bezjak5, R K S Wong5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON; 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Lakeridge Health Corporation, Oshawa, ON; 3. Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON. 4. Palliative Radiation Oncology Program, Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON;; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Brain Metastases Symptom Checklist (bmsc), a novel self-report measure of common symptoms experienced by patients with brain metastases. METHODS: Patients with first-presentation symptomatic brain metastases (n = 137) referred for whole-brain radiotherapy (wbrt) completed the bmsc at time points before and after treatment. Their caregivers (n = 48) provided proxy ratings twice on the day of consultation to assess reliability, and at week 4 after wbrt to assess responsiveness to change. Correlations with 4 other validated assessment tools were evaluated. RESULTS: The symptoms reported on the bmsc were largely mild to moderate, with tiredness (71%) and difficulties with balance (61%) reported most commonly at baseline. Test-retest reliability for individual symptoms had a median intraclass correlation of 0.59 (range: 0.23-0.85). Caregiver proxy and patient responses had a median intraclass correlation of 0.52. Correlation of absolute scores on the bmsc and other symptom assessment tools was low, but consistency in the direction of symptom change was observed. At week 4, change in symptoms was variable, with improvements in weight gain and sleep of 42% and 41% respectively, and worsening of tiredness and drowsiness of 62% and 59% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The bmsc captures a wide range of symptoms experienced by patients with brain metastases, and it is sensitive to change. It demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability and face validity in terms of its responsiveness to change. Future research is needed to determine whether modifications to the bmsc itself or correlation with more symptom-specific measures will enhance validity.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Brain Metastases Symptom Checklist (bmsc), a novel self-report measure of common symptoms experienced by patients with brain metastases. METHODS:Patients with first-presentation symptomatic brain metastases (n = 137) referred for whole-brain radiotherapy (wbrt) completed the bmsc at time points before and after treatment. Their caregivers (n = 48) provided proxy ratings twice on the day of consultation to assess reliability, and at week 4 after wbrt to assess responsiveness to change. Correlations with 4 other validated assessment tools were evaluated. RESULTS: The symptoms reported on the bmsc were largely mild to moderate, with tiredness (71%) and difficulties with balance (61%) reported most commonly at baseline. Test-retest reliability for individual symptoms had a median intraclass correlation of 0.59 (range: 0.23-0.85). Caregiver proxy and patient responses had a median intraclass correlation of 0.52. Correlation of absolute scores on the bmsc and other symptom assessment tools was low, but consistency in the direction of symptom change was observed. At week 4, change in symptoms was variable, with improvements in weight gain and sleep of 42% and 41% respectively, and worsening of tiredness and drowsiness of 62% and 59% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The bmsc captures a wide range of symptoms experienced by patients with brain metastases, and it is sensitive to change. It demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability and face validity in terms of its responsiveness to change. Future research is needed to determine whether modifications to the bmsc itself or correlation with more symptom-specific measures will enhance validity.
Authors: May N Tsao; Nancy S Lloyd; Rebecca K S Wong; Eileen Rakovitch; Edward Chow; Normand Laperriere Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: A Bezjak; J Adam; T Panzarella; W Levin; R Barton; P Kirkbride; M McLean; W Mason; C S Wong; N Laperriere Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: T S Armstrong; T Mendoza; I Gning; I Gring; C Coco; M Z Cohen; L Eriksen; Ming-Ann Hsu; M R Gilbert; C Cleeland Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2006-04-06 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: A Bezjak; J Adam; R Barton; T Panzarella; N Laperriere; C S Wong; W Mason; C Buckley; W Levin; M McLean; J S Y Wu; M Sia; P Kirkbride Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: R E Langley; R J Stephens; M Nankivell; C Pugh; B Moore; N Navani; P Wilson; C Faivre-Finn; R Barton; M K B Parmar; P M Mulvenna Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2012-12-02 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Ariane Steindl; Sarah Yadavalli; Katharina-Anna Gruber; Maria Seiwald; Brigitte Gatterbauer; Karin Dieckmann; Josa M Frischer; Thomas Klikovits; Sabine Zöchbauer-Müller; Anna Grisold; Mir Ali Reza Hoda; Christine Marosi; Georg Widhalm; Matthias Preusser; Anna Sophie Berghoff Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 6.860