Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and brief pain inventory in patients undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases.

PURPOSE: The EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) and the impact of pain in patients with advanced cancer. Interpretation of these instrument scores can be challenging and it is difficult to know what numerical changes translate to clinically significant impact in patients' lives. To address this issue, our study sought to establish the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these two instruments in a prospective cohort of patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID scores from patients enrolled in a randomized phase III trial evaluating two different re-irradiation treatment schedules. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL item from the QLQ-C30 was chosen as the anchor. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for all items and only those items with moderate or better correlation (|r| ≥ 0.30) with the anchor were used for subsequent analysis. A 10-point difference in the global QOL score was used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MCID scores were calculated for each of these categories. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-method, which estimates the MCID purely from the statistical characteristics of the sample population. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included in this study with documented pain responses and completed QOL questionnaires at 2 months. 9/14 items in the QLQ-C30 and 6/10 items in the BPI were found to have moderate or better correlation with the anchor. For deterioration, statistically significant MCID scores were found in all items of the QLQ-C30 and BPI. For improvement, statistically significant MCID scores were found in 7/9 items of the QLQ-C30 and 2/6 items of the BPI. The MCID scores for deterioration were uniformly higher than the MCIDs for improvement. Using the distribution-based method, there was good agreement between the 0.5 standard deviation (SD) values and anchor-based scores for deterioration. For improvement, there was less agreement and the anchor-based scores were lower than the 0.5 SD values obtained from the distribution-based method. CONCLUSION: We present MCID scores for the QLQ-C30 and BPI instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases. The results from this study were compared to other similar studies which showed larger MCID scores for improvement compared to deterioration. We hypothesize that disease trajectory and patient expectations are important factors in understanding the contrasting results. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments.

Classification of painful bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe using both EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and EORTC QLQ-BM22.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have determined optimal cut points (CPs) for the classification of pain severity as mild, moderate, or severe using only the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or the BPI in conjunction with a quality of life (QOL) tool. The purpose of our study was to determine the optimal CPs based on correlation with only QOL outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of 298 patients treated with radiation therapy for painful bone metastases on a phase III randomized trial. Prior to treatment, patients provided their worst pain score on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), as well as completed the European Organization of Cancer Research and Treatment (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22) and the EORTC QOL Questionnaire Core-15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL). Optimal CPs were determined to be those that yielded the largest F ratio for the between category effect on each subscale of the QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL using the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). RESULTS: The two largest F ratios for Wilk's λ, Pillai's Trace, and Hotelling's Trace were for CPs 5,6 and 5,7. Combining both, the optimal CPs to differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe pain were 5 and 7. Pain scores of 1-5, 6, and 7-10 were classified as mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. Patients with severe pain experienced greater functional interference and poorer QOL when compared to those with mild pain. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, based on the impact of pain on QOL measures, pain scores should be classified as follows: 1-5 as mild pain, 6 as moderate pain, and 7-10 as severe pain. Optimal CPs vary depending on the type of outcome measurement used.

Revisiting classification of pain from bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe based on correlation with function and quality of life.

PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to determine the optimal cut points for classification of pain scores as mild, moderate, and severe based on interference with function and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We evaluated 822 patients who completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and/or the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) prior to receiving repeat radiation therapy for previously irradiated painful bone metastases. Optimal cut points for mild, moderate, and severe pain were determined by the MANOVA that yielded the largest F ratio for the between category effect on the seven interference items of BPI and the six functional domains of QOL (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social functioning, and global QOL) as indicated by Pillai's Trace, Wilk's λ, and Hostelling's Trace F statistics. RESULTS: For BPI and for QOL domains separately, the two largest F ratios for Wilk's λ, Pillai's Trace, and Hotelling's Trace F statistics were from the cut points 4, 8 and 6, 8. When combining both, the optimal cut points were 4, 8 with 1-4 (mild), 5-8 (moderate), and 9-10 (severe). With this classification, the mean scores of all the seven interference items in BPI and the six functional domains were all highly statistically different. Patients with severe pain survived significantly shorter than those with mild and moderate pain (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis supports the classification of pain scores as follows: 1-4 as mild pain, 5-8 as moderate pain, and 9-10 as severe pain. This may facilitate conduct of future clinical trials.

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL modules in patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Validated tools for evaluating quality of life (QOL) in patients with bone metastases include the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL modules. A statistically significant difference in metric scores may not be clinically significant. To aid in their interpretation, we performed analyses to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these QOL instruments. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine the MCID among patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized phase III trial. For the anchor-based approach, overall QOL as measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL module was used as the anchor and only the subscales with moderate or better correlation were used for subsequent MCID analysis. In the anchor-based approach, patients were classified as improved, stable or deteriorated by the change in the overall QOL score from baseline to follow-up after 42 days. The MCID and confidence interval was then calculated for all subscales. In the distribution-based approach, the MCID was expressed as a proportion of the standard deviation and standard error measurement from the subscale score distribution. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. Only the dyspnea and insomnia subscales did not have at least moderate correlation with the overall QOL anchor. Using the anchor-based approach, 10/11 subscales had an MCID score significantly different than 0 for improvement and 3/11 subscales had a significant MCID score for deterioration. The magnitude of MCID scores was higher for improvement in comparison with deterioration. For improvement, the anchor-based approach showed good agreement with the distribution-based approach when using 0.5 SD as the MCID. However, there was greater lack of agreement between these approaches for deterioration. CONCLUSION: We present the MCID scores for the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL QOL instruments. The results of this study can guide clinicians in the interpretation of these instruments. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT01248585.

Dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain flare occurs after palliative radiotherapy, and dexamethasone has shown potential for prevention of such flare. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone with that of placebo in terms of reduction of incidence of pain flare. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients from 23 Canadian centres were randomly allocated (1:1) with a web-based system and minimisation algorithm to receive either two 4 mg dexamethasone tablets or two placebo tablets taken orally at least 1 h before the start of radiation treatment (a single 8 Gy dose to bone metastases; day 0) and then every day for 4 days after radiotherapy (days 1-4). Patients were eligible if they had a non-haematological malignancy and bone metastasis (or metastases) corresponding to the clinically painful area or areas. Patients reported their worst pain scores and opioid analgesic intake before treatment and daily for 10 days after radiation treatment. They completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life QLQ-C15-PAL, the bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22), and the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire at baseline, and at days 10 and 42 after radiation treatment. Pain flare was defined as at least a two-point increase on a scale of 0-10 in the worst pain score with no decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% or greater increase in analgesic intake with no decrease in the worst pain score from days 0-10, followed by a return to baseline levels or below. Primary analysis of incidence of pain flare was by intention-to-treat (patients with missing primary data were classified as having pain flare). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248585, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec 11, 2014, 298 patients were enrolled. 39 (26%) of 148 patients randomly allocated to the dexamethasone group and 53 (35%) of 150 patients in the placebo group had a pain flare (difference 8·9%, lower 95% confidence bound 0·0, one-sided p=0·05). Two grade 3 and one grade 4 biochemical hyperglycaemic events occurred in the dexamethasone group (without known clinical effects) compared with none in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were bone pain (61 [41%] of 147 vs 68 [48%] of 143), fatigue (58 [39%] of 147 vs 49 [34%] of 143), constipation (47 [32%] of 147 vs 37 [26%] of 143), and nausea (34 [23%] of 147 vs 34 [24%] of 143), most of which were mild grade 1 or 2. INTERPRETATION: Dexamethasone reduces radiation-induced pain flare in the treatment of painful bone metastases. FUNDING: The NCIC CTG's programmatic grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

Variations in intensity of end-of-life cancer therapy by cancer type at a Canadian tertiary cancer centre between 2003 and 2010.

BACKGROUND: Aggressive medical management of cancer patients at the end of life (EOL) is an indicator of health services quality. We evaluated the variations in EOL cancer therapy utilization and in acute care hospital deaths across different types of cancer within the setting of a regionalized cancer program. METHODS: Intravenous chemotherapy and radiotherapy use within the last 14 and 30 days of life was identified through the Alberta Cancer Registry and then verified by chart review for cancer decedents residing within 50 km of the Tom Baker Cancer Centre between 2003 and 2010. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine variations in outcomes of interest by cancer, adjusting for age and other factors in prespecified models. RESULTS: Of the 9863 decedents included in the study, 3.0 and 6.3 % received chemotherapy within the final 14 and 30 days of life, respectively. In multivariable model, breast, hematological, and gynecological cancers were at least 2.5 times more likely than other cancers to undergo EOL chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was given to 4.6 % of decedents within 14 days of death, but only 66 % (359/542 courses) were completed as prescribed. Acute care admission within 14 days of death was seen in 44 % of decedents and 34 % died in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: In our regional cancer program, the intensity of cancer therapies near the end of life varied considerably across different cancer types. Such variations may be unwarranted. A substantial proportion of cancer deaths occurred in the acute care setting. Greater efforts to integrate palliative care in outpatient cancer services are needed.

Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although repeat radiation treatment has been shown to palliate pain in patients with bone metastases from multiple primary origin sites, data for the best possible dose fractionation schedules are lacking. We aimed to assess two dose fractionation schedules in patients with painful bone metastases needing repeat radiation therapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial in nine countries worldwide. We enrolled patients 18 years or older who had radiologically confirmed, painful (ie, pain measured as ≥2 points using the Brief Pain Inventory) bone metastases, had received previous radiation therapy, and were taking a stable dose and schedule of pain-relieving drugs (if prescribed). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 8 Gy in a single fraction or 20 Gy in multiple fractions by a central computer-generated allocation sequence using dynamic minimisation to conceal assignment, stratified by previous radiation fraction schedule, response to initial radiation, and treatment centre. Patients, caregivers, and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, which was defined as the sum of complete and partial pain responses to treatment, assessed using both Brief Pain Inventory scores and changes in analgesic consumption. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00080912. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2004, and May 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 425 patients to each treatment group. 19 (4%) patients in the 8 Gy group and 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (31%) patients, respectively, were not assessable at 2 months and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 118 (28%) patients allocated to 8 Gy treatment and 135 (32%) allocated to 20 Gy treatment had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·21; response difference of 4·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 9·2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). In the per-protocol population, 116 (45%) of 258 patients and 134 (51%) of 263 patients, respectively, had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·17; response difference 6·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 13·2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). The most frequently reported acute radiation-related toxicities at 14 days were lack of appetite (201 [56%] of 358 assessable patients who received 8 Gy vs 229 [66%] of 349 assessable patients who received 20 Gy; p=0·011) and diarrhoea (81 [23%] of 357 vs 108 [31%] of 349; p=0·018). Pathological fractures occurred in 30 (7%) of 425 patients assigned to 8 Gy and 20 (5%) of 425 assigned to 20 Gy (odds ratio [OR] 1·54, 95% CI 0·85-2·75; p=0·15), and spinal cord or cauda equina compressions were reported in seven (2%) of 425 versus two (<1%) of 425, respectively (OR 3·54, 95% CI 0·73-17·15; p=0·094). INTERPRETATION: In patients with painful bone metastases requiring repeat radiation therapy, treatment with 8 Gy in a single fraction seems to be non-inferior and less toxic than 20 Gy in multiple fractions; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity might exist. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Dutch Cancer Society, and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.

Patient Reported Outcomes After Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases as a Function of Age: A Secondary Analysis of the NCIC CTG SC-Twenty-Three Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To explore the age difference in response and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer having bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life (QOL) Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22), EORTC QOL Core-15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL), and Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) before a single 8-Gy radiation treatment, on days 10 and 42 after treatment. Patient demographics, performance status, analgesic consumption, BM22, C15, and DSQ were compared with multivariant analysis between patients under 75 years and 75 years and older. Multiple linear regression models were used to assess the differences between age-groups, adjusting for baseline demographics and primary disease sites. RESULTS: There were 298 patients (170 male) with 209 (70%) less than 75 years of age. Most common primary cancer sites include lung, prostate, and breast. At baseline, younger patients had better performance status, consumed more analgesic, and reported worse scores in nausea, insomnia, and functional interference, while older patients more commonly had prostate cancer. There were no significant differences in the incidence of radiation-induced pain flare; response to radiation; changes from baseline for BM22, C15-PAL; and DSQ, nor overall survival at day 42 between the 2 groups. Responders to radiation in the elderly group reported better improvement in physical and emotional domains when compared with nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cancer having bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy, there was no significant difference in general with age in response to radiation and patient-reported outcomes. Palliative radiotherapy should be offered to elderly patients when needed.

Gender and age make no difference in the re-irradiation of painful bone metastases: A secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC.20 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient's gender and age may influence physicians in prescribing palliative radiotherapy. The purpose of this secondary analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.20 was to explore the gender and age differences in pain and patient reported outcomes in cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing re-irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Response to radiation was evaluated using the International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (C30) before and 2 months after re-irradiation. RESULTS: A total of 847 patients were analyzed. At baseline, men had more dyspnea, and mild pain. Older patients consumed less analgesic. More women reported clinically significant improvement in mood and enjoyment of life in the BPI after radiation. Similarly, younger patients reported better improvement in enjoyment of life. There were no significant gender or age differences in overall survival, response to radiation, or in C30 scores at 2 months. CONCLUSION: Similar benefit in terms of pain relief was observed across all patient groups. Cancer patients with bone metastases should be offered palliative re-irradiation irrespective of gender or age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00080912; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00080912.

Effect of Radiotherapy on Painful Bone Metastases: A Secondary Analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23.

IMPORTANCE: Many studies that found improved quality of life (QOL) after radiotherapy of bone metastases have small sample sizes and do not use specific questionnaires. How soon after radiotherapy one can expect an improvement in QOL is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate QOL at days 10 and 42 after radiotherapy with a bone metastases-specific QOL tool. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this secondary analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23, a double-blind randomized clinical trial that investigated dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of pain flare after radiotherapy, patients were accrued from 23 Canadian centers from May 30, 2011, to December 11, 2014, and were followed up for 42 days after treatment. Participants referred for radiotherapy for bone metastases were required to have a pain score at the site(s) of treatment of at least 2 (range, 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for 1 or 2 bone metastases. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients reported their worst pain score and analgesic intake at baseline and days 10 and 42 after treatment. Pain response was assessed with International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Self-reported QOL was completed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Bone Metastases Module (QLQ-BM22) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) at the same time points. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients were accrued (median age, 68.8 [range, 32-94] years at day 10 and 68.0 [range, 34-90] years at day 42). A total of 122 patients (40.9%) responded to radiotherapy at day 10 and 116 patients (38.9%) at day 42. At day 10, compared with nonresponders, patients with a pain response had a greater reduction in pain (mean reduction, 17.0 vs 1.8; P = .002) and pain characteristics (mean reduction, 12.8 vs 1.1; P = .002), as well as greater improvements in functional interference (mean increase, 11.6 vs 3.6; P = .01) and psychosocial aspects (mean increase, 1.2 points in responders vs mean decrease of 2.2 points in nonresponders, P = .04). Comparing changes in QOL from baseline to day 42, responders had significantly greater improvements in the physical (mean increase, 6.2 vs -9.0; P < .001), emotional (mean increase, 12.3 vs -5.5; P < .001), and global domains (mean increase, 10.3 vs -4.5; P < .001) of the QLQ-C15-PAL compared with nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Forty percent of patients experienced pain reduction and better QOL at day 10 after radiotherapy with further improvements in QOL at day 42 in responders. A single 8-Gy radiotherapy dose for bone metastases should be offered to all patients, even those with poor survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01248585.

Gender differences in pain and patient reported outcomes: a secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC. 23 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences may contribute to variations in disease presentations and health outcomes. To explore the gender difference in pain and patient reported outcomes in cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy on the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) SC.23 randomized trial. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QOL) bone metastases module (QLQ-BM22) and EORTC QOL Core-15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) before treatment and at days 10 and 42 after a single 8 Gy radiation treatment. Patient demographics, performance status, analgesic consumption, BM22 and C15 were compared between males and females using the 2-sample t-test for continuous variables or the Chi-squared test for categorical variables. Multiple linear regression models were used to check the difference between gender groups adjusting for the baseline demographics and primary disease sites. RESULTS: There were 298 patients (170 male, 128 female) with median age of 69 years. The most common primary cancer sites were lung, prostate and breast. At baseline, there were no differences in BM22 and C15 scores, except a worse nausea and vomiting score (P=0.03) in females on the C15. In patients with moderate baseline worst pain scores (WPS), females reported worse scores in painful sites of BM22. At day 42, there was no significant difference in response to radiotherapy. Among the responders, females reported better improvement in emotional aspect. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy, the majority of symptom presentations, patient reported outcomes, and response to radiation was not significantly different between genders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01248585.

A prospective study validating the EORTC QLQ-BM22 bone metastases module in patients with painful bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Quality of life (QOL) can be compromised in patients with bone metastases, and validated QOL instruments are required to accurately measure QOL outcomes in this population. This study investigated the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module with the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL instrument in bone metastases. METHODS: The studied patients underwent palliative radiotherapy to bone metastases in the randomized NCIC CTG SC 23 trial. Multi-trait scaling analysis was performed to determine convergent and divergent validity among scales. Pearson coefficients were calculated to determine the correlation between items of the two instruments. The clinical validity and responsiveness of the QLQ-BM22 was tested by known group comparisons of different performance status and response to radiotherapy. RESULTS: 204 patients completed both questionnaires at baseline and 42day follow-up. On multi-trait scaling analysis, there was mixed evidence of construct validity (explained by the questionnaire format and population characteristics). There was little correlation between most QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL items (except for conceptually related scales) validating their complementary nature. There were statistically significant differences in all QLQ-BM22 scale scores in groups with KPS<80 vs. KPS⩾80 and three out of four QLQ-BM22 scale scores in "responders" vs. "non-responders" to radiotherapy. In patients who responded to radiotherapy, there were statistically significant differences in all QLQ-BM22 scale scores between baseline and follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study further validates the use of the QLQ-BM22 as a robust and sensitive instrument to assess QOL in patients with bone metastases treated with palliative radiotherapy.

Predictive model for survival in patients having repeat radiation treatment for painful bone metastases.

PURPOSE: To establish a survival prediction model in the setting of a randomized trial of re-irradiation for painful bone metastases. METHODS: Data were randomly divided into training and testing sets with an approximately 3:2 ratio. Baseline factors of gender, primary cancer site, KPS, worst-pain score and age were included with backward variable selection to derive a model using the training set. A partial score was assigned by dividing the value of each statistically significant regression coefficient by the smallest statistically significant regression coefficient. The survival prediction score (SPS) was obtained by adding together partial scores for the variables that were statistically significant. Three risk groups were modelled. RESULTS: The training set included 460 patients and the testing set 351 patients. Only KPS and primary cancer site reached the 5%-significance level. Summing up the partial scores assigned to KPS (90-100, 0; 70-80, 1; 50-60, 2) and primary cancer site (breast, 0; prostate, 1.3; other, 2.6; lung, 3) totalled the SPS. The 1/3 and 2/3 percentiles of the SPS were 2 and 3.6. For the testing set, the median survival of the 3 groups was not reached, 11.3 (95% C.I. 8.5 - not reached) and 5.2 months (95% C.I. 3.7-6.5). The 3, 6 and 12 month survival rates for the worst group were 64.4% (95% C.I. 55.3-72.1%), 43.0% (95% C.I. 34.0-51.8%) and 19.7% (95% C.I. 12.4-28.1%) respectively, similar to that in the training set. CONCLUSION: This survival prediction model will assist in choosing dose fractionation. We recommend a single 8 Gy in the worst group identified.

International consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases.

PURPOSE: To reach a consensus on a set of optimal endpoint measurements for future external beam radiotherapy trials in bone metastases. METHODS: An International Bone Metastases Consensus Working Party invited principal investigators and individuals with a recognized interest in bone metastases to participate in the two surveys and a panel meeting on their preference of choice of optimal endpoints. RESULTS: Consensus has been reached on the following: (a) eligibility criteria for future trials; (b) pain and analgesic assessments; (c) radiation techniques; (d) follow-up and timing of assessments; (e) parameters at follow-up; (f) endpoints; (g) re-irradiation; and (h) statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available literature and the clinical experience of the working party members, an acceptable set of endpoints has been agreed upon for future clinical trials to promote consistency in reporting. It is intended that the consensus will be re-examined every 5 years. Areas of further research were identified.

Primary treatment endpoint following palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: need for a consensus definition?

OBJECTIVES: To compare and contrast the definitions of primary treatment endpoints in randomized studies of dose-fractionation schedules for treating bone metastases and to identify basic characteristics of treatment endpoint that may require consensus among investigators. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various dose-fractionation schedules for painful bone metastases, published between 1980 and 1999, and on-going trials whose protocols were available, were systematically reviewed based on the following features of the primary treatment endpoint: (i) degree of pain relief; (ii) timing of the pain response assessment; (iii) effect of co-interventions on pain relief; (iv) the reduction of analgesic as a treatment response; and (v) quantification of response duration. RESULTS: Ten published RCTs (each sampled over 100 patients), plus two current trial protocols were reviewed. Five of the 12 studies defined any reduction in pain score as the primary endpoint. Three trials defined response at pre-determined time points, whereas eight studies attributed pain improvement at any time during follow-up to the effect of radiotherapy. No trial incorporated effect of systemic treatments on response. Only two trials incorporated analgesic scores into the primary endpoint criteria, although several trials reported results of combined pain and analgesic relief. Eight trials reported duration of response. Three provided some estimation of duration with respect to survival: two of them employing actuarial time to pain progression, and one calculated the ratio of pain response to median survival duration (percent net relief). Quality of life was measured in four of 12 studies, as secondary endpoint. CONCLUSION: Although available data suggest similarity in pain relief among various dose-fractionation schedules, accurate and consistent description of the degree of benefit from radiotherapy is lacking. While pain relief is a consistent primary treatment goal among randomized trials, a consensus on several important features of treatment endpoint is needed in order to establish common grounds for future trials in palliative radiotherapy.

Impact of reirradiation of painful osseous metastases on quality of life and function: a secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC.20 randomized trial.

PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated that 48% of patients with pain at sites of previously irradiated bone metastases benefit from reirradiation. It is unknown whether alleviating pain also improves patient perception of quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the database of a randomized trial comparing radiation treatment dose fractionation schedules to evaluate whether response, determined using the International Consensus Endpoint (ICE) and Brief Pain Inventory pain score (BPI-PS), is associated with patient perception of benefit, as measured using the European Organisation for Resesarch and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and functional interference scale of the BPI (BPI-FI). Evaluable patients completed baseline and 2-month follow-up assessments. RESULTS: Among 850 randomly assigned patients, 528 were evaluable for response using the ICE and 605 using the BPI-PS. Using the ICE, 253 patients experienced a response and 275 did not. Responding patients had superior scores on all items of the BPI-FI (ie, general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, sleep, and enjoyment of life) and improved QOL, as determined by scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales of physical, role, emotional and social functioning, global QOL, fatigue, pain, and appetite. Similar results were obtained using the BPI-PS; observed improvements were typically of lesser magnitude. CONCLUSION: Patients responding to reirradiation of painful bone metastases experience superior QOL scores and less functional interference associated with pain. Patients should be offered re-treatment for painful bone metastases in the hope of reducing pain severity as well as improving QOL and pain interference.

Phase II study of hypofractionated image-guided radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: outcomes of 55 Gy in 16 fractions at 3.4 Gy per fraction.

PURPOSE: To estimate the late morbidity of a novel, hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy schedule of 55 Gy in 16 fractions (4 fractions/week, 3.4 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multi-center phase 2 study enrolled seventy-three patients between September 2004 and June 2006. After insertion of fiducial gold markers, they were treated with image-guidance (IGRT) using conformal techniques with intensity-modulation, if necessary, and then followed every 6 months for toxicity rating and PSA. Patient reported outcomes were collected yearly. Median follow up was 4.6 years. RESULTS: At 4 years post-radiotherapy, the cumulative incidence of combined urinary and bowel grade 3 toxicity was 7% (95% CI 3-16%) and grade 2+ was 33% (95% CI 24-46%). All except two patients recovered from their grade 3 events. Patient-reported reduction of function was most pronounced at year two for urinary function (mean -7, SD 16), and at year one for bowel function (mean -7, SD 21). The cumulative incidence of biochemical (PSA nadir+2) or biopsy-proven relapse at 4 years was 9% (95% CI 4-18%). CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated radiotherapy is clinically feasible and more convenient than conventional schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer. Phase 3 multicenter studies are on-going (NCT00126165).

Patterns of pain and interference in patients with painful bone metastases: a brief pain inventory validation study.

Bone metastases are prevalent, painful, and carry a poorer prognosis for pain control compared with other cancer pain syndromes. Standard tools to measure pain have not been validated in this patient population, and particular subgroups with more challenging symptoms have yet to be identified and studied. The objectives of this study were 1) to validate the psychometric properties of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and its Pain and Interference subscales in patients with clinically significant metastatic bone pain requiring palliative radiotherapy and 2) to examine differences in BPI subscales among predefined subgroups of bone metastases patients. A total of 258 patients evaluated and treated through a rapid access radiation therapy clinic between July 2002, and November 2006, were included in the analysis. High internal consistency of the BPI subscales of Pain, Activity interference, and Affect interference was demonstrated by Cronbach's alpha between 0.81 and 0.89. Removing sleep interference improved model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. The BPI revealed an alarming pattern in patients with lower body metastases, who reported substantial interference of activity even though pain levels were mild or moderate. Such patients may require prompt clinical attention to better meet their needs. Finally, the allocation of interference from sleep within the BPI framework, in our population of pain patients, requires further study.