Manon M C Komen1, Corina J G van den Hurk2, Johan W R Nortier3, T van der Ploeg4, Carolien H Smorenburg5, Jacobus J M van der Hoeven6. 1. Northwest Clinics, Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology, PO Box 501, 1800 AM, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. Electronic address: M.M.C.Komen@nwz.nl. 2. Comprehensive Cancer Organisation The Netherlands, PO Box 19079, 3501 DB, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: C.vandenHurk@iknl.nl. 3. Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jwrnortier@casema.nl. 4. Northwest Clinics, Science Department, PO Box 501, 1800 AM, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. Electronic address: t.vander.ploeg@nwz.nl. 5. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Department of Medical Oncology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.smorenburg@nki.nl. 6. Radboud University Medical Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Koos.vanderHoeven@radboudumc.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Alopecia is one of the most distressing side effects of chemotherapy. Evaluating and comparing the efficacy of potential therapies to prevent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) has been complicated by the lack of a standardized measurement for hair loss. In this study we investigated the correlation between patient-reported outcome assessments and quantitative measurement with the hair check to assess CIA in clinical practice. METHOD: Scalp cooling efficacy was evaluated by patients by World Health Organisation (WHO) of CIA, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and wig use. The Hair Check was used to determine the amount of hair (in mm2) per unit of scalp skin area (in cm2) (Hair Mass Index, HMI). CIA was also evaluated by doctors, nurses and hairdressers. RESULTS: Baseline HMI was not predictive for hair loss. HMI declined throughout all chemotherapy cycles, which was not reflected by patient-reported measures. HMI correlated with patient-reported hair quantity before the start of the therapy, but not with WHO and/or VAS during therapy. Patient's opinion correlated moderately with the opinion of doctors and nurses (ρ = 0.50-0.56 respectively), but strongly with hair dressers (ρ = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The Hair check is suitable to quantify the amount of hair loss and could complement research on refining outcome of scalp cooling, but the patient's opinion should be considered as the best method to assess hair loss in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trialregister.nl NTR number 3082.
PURPOSE:Alopecia is one of the most distressing side effects of chemotherapy. Evaluating and comparing the efficacy of potential therapies to prevent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) has been complicated by the lack of a standardized measurement for hair loss. In this study we investigated the correlation between patient-reported outcome assessments and quantitative measurement with the hair check to assess CIA in clinical practice. METHOD:Scalp cooling efficacy was evaluated by patients by World Health Organisation (WHO) of CIA, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and wig use. The Hair Check was used to determine the amount of hair (in mm2) per unit of scalp skin area (in cm2) (Hair Mass Index, HMI). CIA was also evaluated by doctors, nurses and hairdressers. RESULTS: Baseline HMI was not predictive for hair loss. HMI declined throughout all chemotherapy cycles, which was not reflected by patient-reported measures. HMI correlated with patient-reported hair quantity before the start of the therapy, but not with WHO and/or VAS during therapy. Patient's opinion correlated moderately with the opinion of doctors and nurses (ρ = 0.50-0.56 respectively), but strongly with hair dressers (ρ = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The Hair check is suitable to quantify the amount of hair loss and could complement research on refining outcome of scalp cooling, but the patient's opinion should be considered as the best method to assess hair loss in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trialregister.nl NTR number 3082.
Authors: Maciej Nowacki; Katarzyna Nowacka; Iwona Głowacka; Barbara Zegarska; Wojciech Zegarski Journal: Postepy Dermatol Alergol Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 1.837