Clinical investigation: Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of quality of life radiation therapy instrument (QOL-RTI) for Japanese patients with head and neck malignancies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Japanese translation of Quality of Life Radiation Therapy Instrument (QOL-RTI) and the head and neck module (H&N) for Japanese patients being treated with radiotherapy for head and neck malignancies. MATERIALS & METHODS: The QOL-RTI/H&N was translated into Japanese by a preliminary QOL research working group of JASTRO and was used in this clinical trial. From 1998 to 2001, 70 patients with head and neck malignancies for whom radical radiotherapy was planned were entered into this study. Patients were requested to answer the questions before radiotherapy at baseline, twice during week 4 of therapy (for test-retest reliability), at the end of treatment, and 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years from the beginning of radiotherapy. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Validity was assessed by comparing the results with EORTC-QLQ-C30 and with QOL questionnaire for cancer patients treated with anticancer drugs (QOL-ADC). Patient compliance and test sensitivity were also analyzed. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.79 to 0.93 depending on the time point for the evaluation. Test-retest reliability was acceptable, with a Pearson coefficient of 0.83 for QOL-RTI and 0.92 for H&N module. Compliance with this scheme was 98.2%. The QOL-RTI was sensitive enough to detect significant changes in the QOL score during and after the course of radiotherapy. Agreement with the EORTC-C30 was good with a high Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.648 and that with QOL-ADC was also good with a coefficient of 0.566. The factors analyzed consisted of 11 functional/health-oriented questions, 5 emotional/ psychological, 5 socio-economic/ family and 2 general. CONCLUSION: The Japanese version of QOL-RTI with H&N module was found to be reliable and sensitive enough to evaluate variation of QOL in patients with head and neck malignancies during and after radiotherapy.

Assessment of quality of life and oral function of patients participating in a phase II study of radioprotection of oral and pharyngeal mucosa by the prostaglandin E(1) analog misoprostol (RTOG 96-07).

PURPOSE: The oral complications associated with radiotherapy to the head and neck are a significant dose-limiting factor. The goals of this study were to determine whether oropharyngeal rinsing and ingestion of misoprostol protect mucous membranes from the acute effects of irradiation, and to evaluate the quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes of patients receiving misoprostol. We report the results of the QOL outcomes of patients in this study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 33 patients with resected or intact cancer of the oral cavity, oropharynx, supraglottic larynx, or hypopharynx were registered to receive postoperative radiotherapy plus misoprostol or primary radiotherapy plus misoprostol. All patients were scheduled to receive 60-70 Gy at 2 Gy/d within 6-7 weeks. QOL and function were evaluated. RESULTS: A decrease in the QOL and function occurred in all areas covered by the questionnaire at the 6-week interval. This decrease was significant for eating, saliva, taste, and mucous. Of these significant factors, taste, saliva, and mucous consistency had not resolved by 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Increased understanding of the impact of treatment on QOL and symptoms will formulate the rational design of toxicity interventions and enhance the multidisciplinary care of head-and-neck patients.

Assessment of toxicity in cooperative oncology clinical trials: the long and short of it.

Cancer therapy is associated with inherent adverse effects and the need for complete, consistent and accurate reporting of toxicity is paramount in multicenter cooperative oncology clinical trials. Accurate toxicity information is essential to weigh the costs and benefits associated with new treatment regimens. A major issue faced by investigators and clinical trial coordinators today is the lack of clear directions regarding what method should be used in toxicity assessment in cooperative oncology clinical trials. Research personnel are faced with two options: (1) to be proactive and use a "directed" method of toxicity assessment or (2) to simply follow the data trail and report selected toxicity based only on routine documentation in the chart. The differences between these two approaches may be immense depending on one's perspective. The purpose of this article is to review how the current methods of toxicity assessment evolved and discuss issues and concerns in toxicity assessment in a challenging healthcare environment where clinical trials continue to increase in complexity and workload through the use of novel and multimodality therapies. The potential implications for toxicity data management practices, data quality, patient care management and resource utilization are discussed.