A systematic review of the use of the then-test for evaluating health-related quality of life in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The then-test, also known as the retrospective pre- and post-test design method, is a measurement used to evaluate response shift. The method requires patients to assess their previous health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and provide a retrospective judgement based on their current perspectives. The then-test, however, has been criticized for its reliability and validity. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the current literature for the use of the then-test for evaluating HRQoL in cancer patients and account for potential response shift effects. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in May 2022 using MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsychINFO dated from 2005 to the time of the search. Studies were included if they (I) used the then-test and (II) involved a population of cancer patients (any cancer site). RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 16 studies, published between 2005 and 2020. All studies used the then-test to detect response shifts. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 questionnaires were the most common assessments used to evaluate HRQoL. Of the 16 articles, 5 exclusively reported on breast cancer, 5 reported on prostate cancer, and the remaining included all cancer sites. Most studies looked at patients undergoing a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy. The mean differences between the retrospective assessment at both 3 and 6 months were significant for various quality of life (QoL) dimensions. Patients in some studies recalled their pretreatment HRQoL (then-score) as better than the pretreatment baseline scores and others reported them as worse, both confirming the existence of a response shift. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrates that the then-test measurement tool has been commonly used for the detection of response shift. Newer measures for response shift have become more accepted; the then-test, if used, should be used with caution considering its limitations and the emergence of more advanced methods.

MASCC clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis: part 1) systematic review.

Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) commonly develops in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and is often characterized by erythema, desquamation, and pain. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the current evidence on interventions for the prevention and management of ARD. Databases were searched from 1946 to September 2020 to identify all original studies that evaluated an intervention for the prevention or management of ARD, with an updated search conducted in January 2023. A total of 235 original studies were included in this review, including 149 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Most interventions could not be recommended due to a low quality of evidence, lack of supporting evidence, or conflicting findings across multiple trials. Photobiomodulation therapy, Mepitel® film, mometasone furoate, betamethasone, olive oil, and oral enzyme mixtures showed promising results across multiple RCTs. Recommendations could not be made solely based on the published evidence due to limited high-quality evidence. As such, Delphi consensus recommendations will be reported in a separate publication.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of acute radiation dermatitis: international Delphi consensus-based recommendations.

Acute radiation dermatitis is a frequent adverse effect of radiotherapy, but standardisation of care for acute radiation dermatitis is lacking. Due to the conflicting evidence and variability in current guidelines, a four-round Delphi consensus process was used to compile opinions of 42 international experts on care for people with acute radiation dermatitis on the basis of the evidence in existing medical literature. Interventions for acute radiation dermatitis prevention or management that reached at least 75% consensus were recommended for clinical use. Six interventions could be recommended for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis: photobiomodulation therapy and Mepitel film in people with breast cancer, Hydrofilm, mometasone, betamethasone, and olive oil. Mepilex Lite dressings were recommended for the management of acute radiation dermatitis. Most interventions were not recommended due to insufficient evidence, conflicting evidence, or lack of consensus to support use, suggesting a need for further research. Clinicians can consider implementing recommended interventions in their practice to prevent and manage acute radiation dermatitis until additional evidence becomes available.

Literature review on the use of methoxyflurane in the management of pain in cancer-related procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Self-administered methoxyflurane, also known as Penthrox, at a sub-anesthetic dose is a short-term, fast-acting, and safe analgesic that may provide suitable pain relief for cancer patients. This review aims to compile the existing evidence on methoxyflurane and its efficacy in reducing pain during cancer-related procedures. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through OVID Medline and Embase. The search was limited to articles published between 2012 and 2021 and studies were included if they assessed the efficacy of methoxyflurane to reduce pain in cancer-related procedures. All types of cancer were included. RESULTS: The literature search yielded seven studies published between 2012 and 2021. The studies analyzed assessed methoxyflurane use in prostate biopsy, colonoscopy, removal of brachytherapy rods, and bone marrow biopsy. Various research designs were employed, including three randomized controlled trials, two prospective observational studies, one retrospective, and one non-randomized controlled trial. In all, methoxyflurane has a demonstrated ability to reduce pain in these procedures. CONCLUSION: In the limited studies available in evaluating the efficacy of methoxyflurane for reducing procedural pain during cancer-related procedures, all have demonstrated clinical equivalency or superiority. Pain relief appears to be equivalent however methoxyflurane overcomes the standard limitations of respiratory sedation and has demonstrated quicker procedural recovery times than traditional sedation methods. The accumulated data to date supports the use of methoxyflurane which can supplement or supplant current methods of analgesia in cancer-related procedures.

Current quality of life assessment tools may not fully address dermatological adverse events from anti-cancer therapies.

Supportive oncodermatology is a burgeoning new field within dermatology tasked with caring for the unique dermatologic needs of patients with cancer. Patients with dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) from localized and systemic anti-cancer therapies commonly experience significant distress and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Emerging dAEs is often overlooked by clinicians and researchers, despite their considerable impacts on treatment completion and patient self-esteem. Specific HRQoL issues experienced by cancer patients with dAEs include psychosocial distress and treatment interruption or cessation. Existing HRQoL assessment indices unfortunately fall short when assessing HRQoL in patients with dAEs from anti-cancer therapies due to the lack of specificity to patients' symptoms and inability to fully encompass the unique needs of this population. Additionally, the variability in HRQoL assessments across studies is substantial, suggesting the need for a standardized HRQoL measure. Here, we review the burden of dAEs and the existing validated tools used to measure them, while outlining strategies for modification to achieve optimal HRQoL assessment in patients with dAEs from anti-cancer therapies and address the HRQoL gap in supportive oncodermatology. Amongst the current tools, Skindex-16 most closely addresses the required skin-specific HRQoL metrics, but still lacks a few key cancer-specific measures. Other general HRQoL tools are well-tailored to cancer patients, but lack skin-specific questions.

Comparison of clinical practice guidelines on radiation dermatitis: a narrative review.

PURPOSE: Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a common side effect of radiation therapy (RT). While many different treatment strategies are currently used to address RD, there is a lack of consensus and RD prophylaxis and management guidelines have remained largely unchanged over the last 10 years. This review aims to formulate unambiguous supportive care interventions by comparing RD clinical practice guidelines published between 2010 and 2021 by several organizations: Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), Society and College of Radiographers (SCoR), and International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care (ISNCC). METHODS: Areas of agreement and discordance were assessed among the MASCC, BCCA, CCMB, ONS, SCoR, and ISNCC guidelines. RESULTS: Treatment recommendations across guidelines for acute RD and chronic RT-induced skin toxicities have been summarized. The strongest agreement among the guidelines exists for the use of topical corticosteroids, silver sulfadiazine, washing, and deodorant. All guidelines recommend the use of topical corticosteroids, and washing with water and soap is consistently supported. There is minimal consensus on an optimal dressing or barrier film for RD prophylaxis or management. MASCC weakly recommends prophylactic use of silver sulfadiazine to reduce RD, while BCCA, CCMB, and SCoR recommend its use upon signs of infection. MASCC and CCMB recommend the use of a long-pulsed dye laser to manage telangiectasia, a late effect of RT. CONCLUSIONS: Given the extent of discordance among guideline recommendations, further research is recommended to establish optimal treatments for RD prophylaxis and management.

Changes in Volume and Density Parameters Measured on Computed Tomography Images Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Nonspine Bone Metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Volumetric and density parameters measured from computed tomography scans were investigated for evaluating treatment response of nonspine bone lesions following stereotactic body radiation therapy. METHODS: Twenty-three patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy to nonspine bone metastases with pre- and post-treatment radiological follow-up with computed tomography imaging were identified in a retrospective review. An expert radiologist classified 26 lesions by type (lytic, sclerotic) and by response. Two independent radiation oncologists created separate contours of the bone and soft tissue lesion volumes. Density and volume were assessed relative to baseline values. RESULTS: For bone-only lesions, all lesions designated as local control decreased in volume or remained within 20% of baseline volumes. Lytic lesions classified as progressive disease exhibited much larger volume increases. Lytic bone lesions showed indications of remineralization with some exhibiting immediate increases in density (1-6 months) and others decreasing initially then increasing back toward baseline between 7 and 12 months. The majority of sclerotic lesions, all classified as local control, decreased slightly in both volume and density. Lesions with both soft tissue and boney involvement resulted in contradictory results when employing both radiological and size parameters for assessing treatment response. Classification was dominated by changes in soft tissue volume, despite associated volume or density changes in the corresponding boney lesion. In contrast, when soft tissue volume changes were minimal (<20% increase), classification appeared to be related primarily to density changes and not bone volume. CONCLUSIONS: Volume and density changes show promise as quantitative parameters for classifying treatment responses of nonspine osseous lesions. Further work is required for clarifying how these metrics can be applied to lesions with both boney and soft tissue components.