Prospective Assessment of Patient-Reported Dry Eye Syndrome After Whole Brain Radiation.

PURPOSE: Dry eye is not typically considered a toxicity of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). We analyzed dry eye syndrome as part of a prospective study of patient-reported outcomes after WBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients receiving WBRT to 25 to 40 Gy were enrolled on a study with dry mouth as the primary endpoint and dry eye syndrome as a secondary endpoint. Patients received 3-dimensional WBRT using opposed lateral fields. Per standard practice, lacrimal glands were not prospectively delineated. Patients completed the Subjective Evaluation of Symptom of Dryness (SESoD, scored 0-4, with higher scores representing worse dry eye symptoms) at baseline, immediately after WBRT (EndRT), and at 1 month (1M), 3 months, and 6 months. Patients with baseline SESoD ≥3 (moderate dry eye) were excluded. The endpoints analyzed were ≥1-point and ≥2-point increase in SESoD score at 1M. Lacrimal glands were retrospectively delineated with fused magnetic resonance imaging scans. RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled, 70 were eligible for analysis, and 54 were evaluable at 1M. Median bilateral lacrimal V20Gy was 79%. At 1M, 17 patients (32%) had a ≥1-point increase in SESoD score, and 13 (24%) a ≥2-point increase. Lacrimal doses appeared to be associated with an increase in SESoD score of both ≥1 point (V10Gy: P = .042, odds ratio [OR] 1.09/%; V20Gy: P = .071, OR 1.03/%) and ≥2 points (V10Gy: P = .038, OR 1.15/%; V20Gy: P = .063, OR 1.04/%). The proportion with increase in dry eye symptoms at 1M for lacrimal V20Gy ≥79% versus <79% was 46% versus 15%, respectively, for ≥1 point SESoD increase (P = .02) and 36% versus 12%, respectively, for ≥2 point SESoD increase (P = .056). CONCLUSIONS: Dry eye appears to be a relatively common, dose/volume-dependent acute toxicity of WBRT. Minimization of lacrimal gland dose may reduce this toxicity, and patients should be counseled regarding the existence of this potential side effect and treatments for dry eye.

Assessment of Risk of Xerostomia After Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy and Association With Parotid Dose.

Importance: Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) delivers a substantial radiation dose to the parotid glands, but the parotid glands are not delineated for avoidance and xerostomia has never been reported as an adverse effect. Minimizing the toxic effects in patients receiving palliative treatments, such as WBRT, is crucial. Objective: To assess whether xerostomia is a toxic effect of WBRT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study enrolled patients from November 2, 2015, to March 20, 2018, at 1 academic center (University of North Carolina Hospitals) and 2 affiliated community hospitals (High Point Regional Hospital and University of North Carolina Rex Hospital). Adult patients (n = 100) receiving WBRT for the treatment or prophylaxis of brain metastases were enrolled. Patients who had substantial baseline xerostomia or did not complete WBRT or at least 1 postbaseline questionnaire were prospectively excluded from analysis and follow-up. Patients received 3-dimensional WBRT using opposed lateral fields covering the skull and the C1 or C2 vertebra. Per standard practice, the parotid glands were not prospectively delineated. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients completed the University of Michigan Xerostomia Questionnaire and a 4-point bother score at baseline, immediately after WBRT, at 1 month, at 3 months, and at 6 months. The primary end point was the 1-month xerostomia score, with a hypothesized worsening score of 10 points from baseline. Results: Of the 100 patients enrolled, 73 (73%) were eligible for analysis and 55 (55%) were evaluable at 1 month. The 73 patients included 43 women (59%) and 30 men (41%) with a median (range) age of 61 (23-88) years. The median volume of parotid receiving at least 20 Gy (V20Gy) was 47%. The mean xerostomia score was 7 points at baseline and was statistically significantly higher at each assessment period, including 21 points immediately after WBRT (95% CI, 16-26; P < .001), 23 points (95% CI, 16-30; P < .001) at 1 month, 21 points (95% CI, 13-28; P < .001) at 3 months, and 14 points (95% CI, 7-21; P = .03) at 6 months. At 1 month, the xerostomia score increased by 20 points or more in 19 patients (35%). The xerostomia score at 1 month was associated with parotid dose as a continuous variable and was 35 points in patients with parotid V20Gy of 47% or greater, compared with only 9 points in patients with parotid V20Gy less than 47% (P < .001). The proportion of patients who self-reported to be bothered quite a bit or bothered very much by xerostomia at 1 month was 50% in those with parotid V20Gy of 47% or greater, compared with only 4% in those with parotid V20Gy less than 47% (P < .001). At 3 months, this difference was 50% vs 0% (P = .001). Xerostomia was not associated with medication use. Conclusions and Relevance: Clinically significant xerostomia occurred by the end of WBRT, appeared to be persistent, and appeared to be associated with parotid dose. The findings from this study suggest that the parotid glands should be delineated for avoidance to minimize these toxic effects in patients who undergo WBRT and often do not survive long enough for salivary recovery.

The prognostic value of pre-diagnosis health-related quality of life on survival: a prospective cohort study of older Americans with lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after cancer diagnosis is prognostic for overall survival (OS). However, no studies have assessed if HRQOL before diagnosis is predictive for OS. The objective of this study was to determine the association between pre-lung cancer diagnosis HRQOL and OS. METHODS: Our prospective cohort study used surveillance, epidemiology, and end results linked to the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. We included 6290 individuals 65 years or older diagnosed with incident lung cancer from 1998 to 2013. We assessed the prognostic value of (1) short-form 36 summary component and domain-specific scores, (2) activities of daily living (ADL), and (3) two global HRQOL questions. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to examine associations between HRQOL and OS, adjusting for demographics, comorbid conditions, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Worse pre-diagnosis HRQOL was significantly associated with greater risk of death across HRQOL measures. An above average physical or mental component summary score was associated with 16 and 24% decreases in the hazard of death, respectively (p < 0.0001). Being unable to perform ADLs, such as bathing oneself, was associated with an 89% increased hazard of death (p < 0.0001). Reporting "poor" versus "excellent" health was associated with a 74% increase in the hazard of death (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This population-based study reinforces the importance of self-reported health status as a predictor for OS. Routine HRQOL screening may identify patients who could benefit from early interventions to improve HRQOL. Future studies should explore associations between changes in HRQOL before and after cancer diagnosis and OS.

Changes in initial treatment for prostate cancer among Medicare beneficiaries, 1999-2007.

PURPOSE: In the absence of evidence from large clinical trials, optimal therapy for localized prostate cancer remains unclear; however, treatment patterns continue to change. We examined changes in the management of patients with prostate cancer in the Medicare population. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective claims-based analysis of the use of radiation therapy, surgery, and androgen deprivation therapy in the 12 months after diagnosis of prostate cancer in a nationally representative 5% sample of Medicare claims. Patients were Medicare beneficiaries 67 years or older with incident prostate cancer diagnosed between 1999 and 2007. RESULTS: There were 20,918 incident cases of prostate cancer between 1999 and 2007. The proportion of patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy decreased from 55% to 36%, and the proportion of patients receiving no active therapy increased from 16% to 23%. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy replaced three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy as the most common method of radiation therapy, accounting for 77% of external beam radiotherapy by 2007. Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy began to replace open surgical approaches, being used in 49% of radical prostatectomies by 2007. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2002 and 2007, the use of androgen deprivation therapy decreased, open surgical approaches were largely replaced by minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy replaced three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy as the predominant method of radiation therapy in the Medicare population. The aging of the population and the increasing use of newer, higher-cost technologies in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer may have important implications for nationwide health care costs.

Assessment of postbrachytherapy sexual function: a comparison of the IIEF-5 and the MSEFS.

PURPOSE: This study is to compare the Mount Sinai Erectile Function Score (MSEFS), our brachytherapy program's physician-assigned scale, with patients' independently completed International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 1202 patients with T1-T3 prostate cancer were treated with ultrasound-guided radioactive seed implantation +/- EBRT with at least one visit where both MSEFS and IIEF-5 were completed. Spearman rho correlations were performed. RESULTS: The MSEFS significantly correlated with the total IIEF-5 scores on all comparisons. The coefficient was 0.65 for comparisons at initial consultation and 0.76 for all visits. The correlations remained strong, averaging to 0.76 for visits 1 through 10. CONCLUSIONS: In assessing erectile dysfunction after radiation, the MSEFS correlates well with, but cannot be replaced by, the IIEF-5, which is weighted toward one's degree of sexual desire. More insight into patients' erectile function after brachytherapy may be gotten if the IIEF-15 is used instead of the IIEF-5 with our MSEFS.