Diana D Shi1, Tracy A Balboni2, Monica S Krishnan2, Alexander Spektor2, Mai Anh Huynh2, Ron Y Shiloh2, Sonia Skamene3, Cierra Zaslowe-Dude2, Lauren M Hertan4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. dshi1@partners.org. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While the 0-10 pain scale is often used to assess treatment response, it may not accurately reflect change in pain over time. The purpose of this study is to correlate pain improvement using the 0-10 pain scale to patients' perceived improvement in pain following palliative radiation therapy (RT), and to qualitatively characterize themes of pain assessment. METHODS: Patients age ≥ 20 receiving RT for spinal metastases were enrolled. Patients rated their pain (0-10) at the treatment site at RT start, and 1 and 4 weeks post-RT completion. At 1 and 4 weeks post-RT, patients reported their perceived percent improvement in pain (pPIP) (0-100%), which was compared to calculated percent improvement in pain (cPIP) based on the 0-10 pain scores. At 4 weeks post-RT, 20 randomly selected patients participated in a qualitative pain assessment. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients treated at 1-2 sites were analyzed. At 1 week post-RT completion, 53.7% (36/67) reported pPIP within 10 percentage points of cPIP, 32.8% (22/67) reported pPIP > 10 percentage points higher than cPIP, and 13.4% (9/67) reported pPIP > 10 percentage points lower than cPIP. Similar degrees of discordance were seen at 4 weeks post-RT. Qualitative analysis revealed five themes: pain quality (n = 19), activities (n = 9), function (n = 7), medication use (n = 2), and radiation side effects (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: About half of patients reported a pPIP substantially disparate from their cPIP, and the change in pain measured by the 0-10 scale tended to underestimate the degree of perceived pain improvement. Multiple themes were identified in qualitative analysis of pain response.
PURPOSE: While the 0-10 pain scale is often used to assess treatment response, it may not accurately reflect change in pain over time. The purpose of this study is to correlate pain improvement using the 0-10 pain scale to patients' perceived improvement in pain following palliative radiation therapy (RT), and to qualitatively characterize themes of pain assessment. METHODS: Patients age ≥ 20 receiving RT for spinal metastases were enrolled. Patients rated their pain (0-10) at the treatment site at RT start, and 1 and 4 weeks post-RT completion. At 1 and 4 weeks post-RT, patients reported their perceived percent improvement in pain (pPIP) (0-100%), which was compared to calculated percent improvement in pain (cPIP) based on the 0-10 pain scores. At 4 weeks post-RT, 20 randomly selected patients participated in a qualitative pain assessment. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients treated at 1-2 sites were analyzed. At 1 week post-RT completion, 53.7% (36/67) reported pPIP within 10 percentage points of cPIP, 32.8% (22/67) reported pPIP > 10 percentage points higher than cPIP, and 13.4% (9/67) reported pPIP > 10 percentage points lower than cPIP. Similar degrees of discordance were seen at 4 weeks post-RT. Qualitative analysis revealed five themes: pain quality (n = 19), activities (n = 9), function (n = 7), medication use (n = 2), and radiation side effects (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: About half of patients reported a pPIP substantially disparate from their cPIP, and the change in pain measured by the 0-10 scale tended to underestimate the degree of perceived pain improvement. Multiple themes were identified in qualitative analysis of pain response.
Authors: Edward Chow; Peter Hoskin; Gunita Mitera; Liang Zeng; Stephen Lutz; Daniel Roos; Carol Hahn; Yvette van der Linden; William Hartsell; Eshwar Kumar Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: William F Hartsell; Charles B Scott; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Charles W Scarantino; Robert A Ivker; Mack Roach; John H Suh; William F Demas; Benjamin Movsas; Ivy A Petersen; Andre A Konski; Charles S Cleeland; Nora A Janjan; Michelle DeSilvio Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David D Howell; Jennifer L James; William F Hartsell; Mohan Suntharalingam; Mitchell Machtay; John H Suh; William F Demas; Howard M Sandler; Lisa A Kachnic; Lawrence B Berk Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Augusto Caraceni; Tito R Mendoza; Emanuela Mencaglia; Claudio Baratella; Katherine Edwards; Maria Joao Forjaz; Cinzia Martini; Ronald C Serlin; Franco de Conno; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Pain Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Stephen G Chun; Edward Chow; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Rensi Zacharia; Bill K Szeto; James W Welsh; Stephen M Hahn; C David Fuller; Bryan S Moon; Justin E Bird; Robert Satcher; Patrick P Lin; Melenda Jeter; Michael S O'Reilly; Valerae O Lewis Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Ta-Chung Chao; Kenneth Dean Reeves; King Hei Stanley Lam; Tsung-Ying Li; Yung-Tsan Wu Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Kelsey L Corrigan; Brian De; Michael K Rooney; Ethan B Ludmir; Prajnan Das; Grace L Smith; Cullen M Taniguchi; Bruce D Minsky; Eugene J Koay; Albert C Koong; Emma B Holliday Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04-30