Carsten Nieder1,2, Thomas A Kämpe3, Adam Pawinski3, Astrid Dalhaug3,4. 1. Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital Trust, 8092, Bodø, Norway. carsten.nieder@nlsh.no. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT-The Artic University of Norway, 9038, Tromsø, Norway. carsten.nieder@nlsh.no. 3. Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital Trust, 8092, Bodø, Norway. 4. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT-The Artic University of Norway, 9038, Tromsø, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Widely used prognostic scores, e. g., for brain or bone metastases, are based on disease- and patient-related factors such as extent of metastases, age and performance status, which were available in the databases used to develop the scores. Few groups were able to include patient-reported symptoms. In our department, all patients were assessed with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS, a one-sheet questionnaire addressing 11 major symptoms and wellbeing on a numeric scale of 0-10) at the time of treatment planning since 2012. Therefore, we analyzed the prognostic impact of baseline ESAS symptom severity. METHODS: Retrospective review of 102 patients treated with palliative radiotherapy (PRT) between 2012 and 2015. All ESAS items were dichotomized (below/above median). Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: The most common tumor types were prostate, breast and non-small cell lung cancer, predominantly with distant metastases. Median survival was 6 months. Multivariate analysis resulted in six significant prognostic factors. These were ESAS pain while not moving (median 3), ESAS appetite (median 5), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, pleural effusion/metastases, intravenous antibiotics at start or within 2 weeks before PRT and no systemic cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Stronger pain while not moving and reduced appetite (below/above median) predicted significantly shorter survival. Development of new prognostic scores should include patient-reported symptoms and other innovative parameters because they were more important than primary tumor type, age and other traditional baseline parameters.
BACKGROUND: Widely used prognostic scores, e. g., for brain or bone metastases, are based on disease- and patient-related factors such as extent of metastases, age and performance status, which were available in the databases used to develop the scores. Few groups were able to include patient-reported symptoms. In our department, all patients were assessed with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS, a one-sheet questionnaire addressing 11 major symptoms and wellbeing on a numeric scale of 0-10) at the time of treatment planning since 2012. Therefore, we analyzed the prognostic impact of baseline ESAS symptom severity. METHODS: Retrospective review of 102 patients treated with palliative radiotherapy (PRT) between 2012 and 2015. All ESAS items were dichotomized (below/above median). Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: The most common tumor types were prostate, breast and non-small cell lung cancer, predominantly with distant metastases. Median survival was 6 months. Multivariate analysis resulted in six significant prognostic factors. These were ESAS pain while not moving (median 3), ESAS appetite (median 5), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, pleural effusion/metastases, intravenous antibiotics at start or within 2 weeks before PRT and no systemic cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Stronger pain while not moving and reduced appetite (below/above median) predicted significantly shorter survival. Development of new prognostic scores should include patient-reported symptoms and other innovative parameters because they were more important than primary tumor type, age and other traditional baseline parameters.
Authors: Paulien G Westhoff; Alexander de Graeff; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Laurens Bollen; Sander P Dijkstra; Elzbieta M van der Steen-Banasik; Marco van Vulpen; Jan Willem H Leer; Corrie A Marijnen; Yvette M van der Linden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: D Rades; L Dziggel; B Segedin; I Oblak; V Nagy; A Marita; S E Schild; N T Trang; M T Khoa Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Changhong Yu; Andrew E Sloan; Jaime Vengoechea; Meihua Wang; James J Dignam; Michael A Vogelbaum; Paul W Sperduto; Minesh P Mehta; Mitchell Machtay; Michael W Kattan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Yue Zhou; Fan Yu; Yang Zhao; Ya Zeng; Xi Yang; Li Chu; Xiao Chu; Yida Li; Liqing Zou; Tiantian Guo; Zhengfei Zhu; Jianjiao Ni Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2020-12
Authors: Pirus Ghadjar; Wiebke Stritter; Irina von Mackensen; Felix Mehrhof; Clara Foucré; Vincent H Ehrhardt; Marcus Beck; Pimrapat Gebert; Goda Kalinauskaite; Jacqueline S Luchte; Carmen Stromberger; Volker Budach; Angelika Eggert; Georg Seifert Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Rami A El Shafie; Dorothea Weber; Nina Bougatf; Tanja Sprave; Dieter Oetzel; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Nils H Nicolay Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 4.773