BACKGROUND: Outcomes projects can be a catalyst for determining disease- and treatment-related consequences for patients with rare tumors. The Adult Ependymoma Outcomes (AEO) survey uses self-reported experience to evaluate how this tumor affects patient groups throughout the illness trajectory. METHODS: Patients completed the AEO survey via a Web-based portal. The survey included questions on treatment, tumor recurrence, and current health status; the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor and Spine Tumor modules; and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: The sample included 264 participants (57% female) with a median age of 46 years (range, 18-77 years). Radiation treatment was commonly used for patients who had brain involvement (χ2 (1) = 20.7; P < .001), underwent a partial resection (43%; χ2 (3) = 15.4; P < .001), or had a grade 3 tumor (41%; χ2 (2) = 18.8; P < .001). Recurrence occurred in a small group (29%), with grade 1 tumor patients 2.6 times more likely and grade 3 tumor patients 2.5 times more likely to experience recurrence than those with grade 2 tumors. Spine tumor patients had a higher symptom burden (mean, 2.8; scale, 0-10) than brain tumor patients (t(247) = -4.0), and they reported more moderate to severe symptoms (rating ≥ 5; 29%) than their counterparts (18%). Within the physical health portion of the SF-36, spine tumor patients reported worse health with respect to bodily pain (t(249) = 6.8; P < .001), physical functioning (t(252) = 4.1; P < .001), and vitality (t(202.2) = 3.0; P < .003). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the feasibility of implementing outcomes projects that report on the clinical and demographic characteristics of a rare patient population, and they underscore the importance of outcomes data in understanding disease-related issues. Cancer 2017;123:494-501.
BACKGROUND: Outcomes projects can be a catalyst for determining disease- and treatment-related consequences for patients with rare tumors. The Adult Ependymoma Outcomes (AEO) survey uses self-reported experience to evaluate how this tumor affects patient groups throughout the illness trajectory. METHODS:Patients completed the AEO survey via a Web-based portal. The survey included questions on treatment, tumor recurrence, and current health status; the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Brain Tumor and Spine Tumor modules; and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: The sample included 264 participants (57% female) with a median age of 46 years (range, 18-77 years). Radiation treatment was commonly used for patients who had brain involvement (χ2 (1) = 20.7; P < .001), underwent a partial resection (43%; χ2 (3) = 15.4; P < .001), or had a grade 3 tumor (41%; χ2 (2) = 18.8; P < .001). Recurrence occurred in a small group (29%), with grade 1 tumorpatients 2.6 times more likely and grade 3 tumorpatients 2.5 times more likely to experience recurrence than those with grade 2 tumors. Spine tumorpatients had a higher symptom burden (mean, 2.8; scale, 0-10) than brain tumorpatients (t(247) = -4.0), and they reported more moderate to severe symptoms (rating ≥ 5; 29%) than their counterparts (18%). Within the physical health portion of the SF-36, spine tumorpatients reported worse health with respect to bodily pain (t(249) = 6.8; P < .001), physical functioning (t(252) = 4.1; P < .001), and vitality (t(202.2) = 3.0; P < .003). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the feasibility of implementing outcomes projects that report on the clinical and demographic characteristics of a rare patient population, and they underscore the importance of outcomes data in understanding disease-related issues. Cancer 2017;123:494-501.
Authors: Terri S Armstrong; Ibrahima Gning; Tito R Mendoza; Elizabeth Vera-Bolanos; Mark R Gilbert; Laurence D Rhines; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Gisela Sanchez-Williams; Victor Levin; Allen W Burton; Charles Cleeland Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2010-04
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: Tobias Walbert; Tito R Mendoza; Elizabeth Vera-Bolaños; Alvina Acquaye; Mark R Gilbert; Terri S Armstrong Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Terri S Armstrong; Elizabeth Vera-Bolanos; B Nebiyou Bekele; Kenneth Aldape; Mark R Gilbert Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2010-02-05 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Roberta Rudà; Guido Reifenberger; Didier Frappaz; Stefan M Pfister; Anne Laprie; Thomas Santarius; Patrick Roth; Joerg Christian Tonn; Riccardo Soffietti; Michael Weller; Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan Moyal Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jiri Bartek; Sanjay Dhawan; Erik Thurin; Ali Alattar; Sasha Gulati; Bertil Rydenhag; Roger Henriksson; Clark C Chen; Asgeir Store Jakola Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Pavankumar Rudrabhatla; Sekar Sabarish; Sruthi S Nair; Tobin George; Ganesh Divakar; P N Sylaja Journal: Ann Indian Acad Neurol Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 1.383