Rachel McDonald1, Keyue Ding2, Michael Brundage3, Ralph M Meyer4, Abdenour Nabid5, Pierre Chabot6, Genevieve Coulombe7, Shahida Ahmed8, Joda Kuk9, A Rashid Dar10, Aamer Mahmud11, Alysa Fairchild12, Carolyn F Wilson2, Jackson S Y Wu13, Kristopher Dennis14, Carlo DeAngelis15, Rebecca K S Wong16, Liting Zhu2, Stephanie Chan1, Edward Chow1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Canadian Clinical Trials Group, Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 4. Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hopital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal, Québec, Canada. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, CHUM-Hopital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Québec, Canada. 8. CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 9. Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, Grand River Hospital, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. 10. London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada. 11. Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 12. Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 13. Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 15. Department of Pharmacy, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 16. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Ontario Cancer Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Many studies that found improved quality of life (QOL) after radiotherapy of bone metastases have small sample sizes and do not use specific questionnaires. How soon after radiotherapy one can expect an improvement in QOL is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate QOL at days 10 and 42 after radiotherapy with a bone metastases-specific QOL tool. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this secondary analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23, a double-blind randomized clinical trial that investigated dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of pain flare after radiotherapy, patients were accrued from 23 Canadian centers from May 30, 2011, to December 11, 2014, and were followed up for 42 days after treatment. Participants referred for radiotherapy for bone metastases were required to have a pain score at the site(s) of treatment of at least 2 (range, 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for 1 or 2 bone metastases. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients reported their worst pain score and analgesic intake at baseline and days 10 and 42 after treatment. Pain response was assessed with International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Self-reported QOL was completed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Bone Metastases Module (QLQ-BM22) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) at the same time points. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients were accrued (median age, 68.8 [range, 32-94] years at day 10 and 68.0 [range, 34-90] years at day 42). A total of 122 patients (40.9%) responded to radiotherapy at day 10 and 116 patients (38.9%) at day 42. At day 10, compared with nonresponders, patients with a pain response had a greater reduction in pain (mean reduction, 17.0 vs 1.8; P = .002) and pain characteristics (mean reduction, 12.8 vs 1.1; P = .002), as well as greater improvements in functional interference (mean increase, 11.6 vs 3.6; P = .01) and psychosocial aspects (mean increase, 1.2 points in responders vs mean decrease of 2.2 points in nonresponders, P = .04). Comparing changes in QOL from baseline to day 42, responders had significantly greater improvements in the physical (mean increase, 6.2 vs -9.0; P < .001), emotional (mean increase, 12.3 vs -5.5; P < .001), and global domains (mean increase, 10.3 vs -4.5; P < .001) of the QLQ-C15-PAL compared with nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Forty percent of patients experienced pain reduction and better QOL at day 10 after radiotherapy with further improvements in QOL at day 42 in responders. A single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for bone metastases should be offered to all patients, even those with poor survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01248585.
IMPORTANCE: Many studies that found improved quality of life (QOL) after radiotherapy of bone metastases have small sample sizes and do not use specific questionnaires. How soon after radiotherapy one can expect an improvement in QOL is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate QOL at days 10 and 42 after radiotherapy with a bone metastases-specific QOL tool. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this secondary analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23, a double-blind randomized clinical trial that investigated dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of pain flare after radiotherapy, patients were accrued from 23 Canadian centers from May 30, 2011, to December 11, 2014, and were followed up for 42 days after treatment. Participants referred for radiotherapy for bone metastases were required to have a pain score at the site(s) of treatment of at least 2 (range, 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for 1 or 2 bone metastases. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients reported their worst pain score and analgesic intake at baseline and days 10 and 42 after treatment. Pain response was assessed with International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Self-reported QOL was completed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Bone Metastases Module (QLQ-BM22) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) at the same time points. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients were accrued (median age, 68.8 [range, 32-94] years at day 10 and 68.0 [range, 34-90] years at day 42). A total of 122 patients (40.9%) responded to radiotherapy at day 10 and 116 patients (38.9%) at day 42. At day 10, compared with nonresponders, patients with a pain response had a greater reduction in pain (mean reduction, 17.0 vs 1.8; P = .002) and pain characteristics (mean reduction, 12.8 vs 1.1; P = .002), as well as greater improvements in functional interference (mean increase, 11.6 vs 3.6; P = .01) and psychosocial aspects (mean increase, 1.2 points in responders vs mean decrease of 2.2 points in nonresponders, P = .04). Comparing changes in QOL from baseline to day 42, responders had significantly greater improvements in the physical (mean increase, 6.2 vs -9.0; P < .001), emotional (mean increase, 12.3 vs -5.5; P < .001), and global domains (mean increase, 10.3 vs -4.5; P < .001) of the QLQ-C15-PAL compared with nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Forty percent of patients experienced pain reduction and better QOL at day 10 after radiotherapy with further improvements in QOL at day 42 in responders. A single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for bone metastases should be offered to all patients, even those with poor survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01248585.
Authors: Edward Chow; Amanda Hird; Galina Velikova; Colin Johnson; Linda Dewolf; Andrea Bezjak; Jackson Wu; Jesmin Shafiq; Orhan Sezer; Dimitrios Kardamakis; Yvette van der Linden; Brigette Ma; Monica Castro; Palmira Foro Arnalot; Sam Ahmedzai; Mark Clemons; Peter Hoskin; Albert Yee; Michael Brundage; Andrew Bottomley Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A Caissie; L Zeng; J Nguyen; L Zhang; F Jon; K Dennis; L Holden; S Culleton; K Koo; M Tsao; E Barnes; C Danjoux; A Sahgal; C Simmons; E Chow Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Mogens Groenvold; Morten Aa Petersen; Neil K Aaronson; Juan I Arraras; Jane M Blazeby; Andrew Bottomley; Peter M Fayers; Alexander de Graeff; Eva Hammerlid; Stein Kaasa; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Jakob B Bjorner Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-09-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Edward Chow; Jackson S Y Wu; Peter Hoskin; Lawrence R Coia; Soren M Bentzen; Peter H Blitzer Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Paulien G Westhoff; Alexander de Graeff; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Jacqueline Pomp; Marco van Vulpen; Jan Willem H Leer; Corrie A M Marijnen; Yvette M van der Linden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Miriam Vázquez; Manuel Altabas; Diana C Moreno; Abraham A Geng; Santiago Pérez-Hoyos; Jordi Giralt Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: L Placidi; L Boldrini; J Lenkowicz; S Manfrida; R Gatta; A Damiani; S Chiesa; F Ciellini; V Valentini Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-01
Authors: C Jara; S Del Barco; C Grávalos; S Hoyos; B Hernández; M Muñoz; T Quintanar; J A Meana; C Rodriguez; R de Las Peñas Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: D Harding; S L Giles; M R D Brown; G R Ter Haar; M van den Bosch; L W Bartels; Y-S Kim; M Deppe; N M deSouza Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 4.126