Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BN20 in patients with brain metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Quality of life (QOL) is an important treatment endpoint in advanced cancer patients with brain metastases. In clinical trials, statistically significant changes can be reached in a large enough population; however, these changes may not be clinically relevant. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire brain module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) in patients with brain metastases. METHODS: Patients undergoing radiotherapy for brain metastases completed the EORTC QLQ-BN20 and QLQ-C30/C15-PAL at baseline and 1-month follow-up. MCIDs were calculated for both improvement and deterioration using anchor- and distribution-based approaches. The anchor of overall QOL (as assessed by question 30 or question 15 on the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-C15-PAL, respectively) was used to determine meaningful change. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were included. The average age was 61 years, and the most common primary cancer sites were the lung and breast. Statistically significant meaningful differences were seen on two scales. A decrease of 6.1 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 11.4) units and 13.8 (0.2 to 27.4) units was required to represent clinically relevant deterioration of seizures and weakness of legs, respectively. Distribution-based MCID estimates tended to be closer to 0.5 SD on the EORTC QLQ-BN20. CONCLUSION: Understanding MCIDs allows physicians to determine the impact of treatment on patients' QOL and allows for determination of sample sizes for clinical trials. Future studies should be conducted to validate our findings in a larger population of patients with brain metastases.

Quality of life in patients with brain metastases using the EORTC QLQ-BN20+2 and QLQ-C15-PAL.

PURPOSE: The 20-item European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Brain Neoplasm (QLQ-BN20) is a validated quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaire for patients with primary brain tumors. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) core palliative questionnaire is a 15-item version of the core 30-item QLQ-C30 and was developed to decrease the burden on patients with advanced cancer. The combination of the QLQ-BN20 and QLQ-C30 to assess QOL may be too burdensome for patients. The primary aim of this study was to assess QOL in patients before and after treatment for brain metastases using the QLQ-BN20+2 and QLQ-C15-PAL, a version of the QLQ-BN20 questionnaire with 2 additional questions assessing cognitive functioning that were not addressed in the QLQ-C15-PAL. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with brain metastases completed the QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-BN20+2 questionnaires to assess QOL before and 1 month after radiation. Linear regression analysis was used to assess changes in QOL scores over time, as well as to explore associations between the QLQ-BN20+2 and QLQ-C15-PAL scales, patient demographics, and clinical variables. Spearman correlation assessed associations between the QLQ-BN20+2 and QLQ-C15-PAL scales. RESULTS: Among 108 patients, the majority (55%) received whole-brain radiotherapy only, with 65% of patients completing follow-up at 1 month after treatment. The most prominent symptoms at baseline were future uncertainty (QLQ-BN20+2) and fatigue (QLQ-C15-PAL). After treatment, significant improvement was seen for the QLQ-C15-PAL insomnia scale, as well as the QLQ-BN20+2 scales of future uncertainty, visual disorder, and concentration difficulty. Baseline Karnofsky Performance Status was negatively correlated to QLQ-BN20+2 motor dysfunction but positively related to QLQ-C15-PAL physical functioning and QLQ-BN20+2 cognitive functioning at baseline and follow-up. QLQ-BN20+2 scales of future uncertainty and motor dysfunction correlated with the most QLQ-C15-PAL scales, including overall QOL (negative association) at baseline and follow-up. CONCLUSION: After radiation, the questionnaires showed maintenance of QOL and improvement of QOL scores such as future uncertainty, which featured prominently in this patient population. It is proposed that the 37-item QLQ-BN20+2 and QLQ-C15-PAL, as opposed to the 50-item QLQ-BN20 and QLQ-C30, may be used together as a universal QOL assessment tool in this setting.

International patterns of practice in the management of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: To investigate international patterns of practice in the management of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Oncologists prescribing radiation therapy in the United States, Canada, The Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, France, Hong Kong, Singapore, Cyprus, and Israel completed a Web-based survey that was based on 6 radiation therapy-only clinical cases modeled after the minimal-, low-, moderate-, and high-emetic risk levels defined in the antiemetic guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. For each case, respondents estimated the risks of nausea and vomiting separately and committed to an initial management approach. RESULTS: In total, 1022 responses were received. Risk estimates and management decisions for the minimal- and high-risk cases varied little and were in line with guideline standards, whereas those for the low- and moderate-risk cases varied greatly. The most common initial management strategies were as follows: rescue therapy for a minimal-risk case (63% of respondents), 2 low-risk cases (56% and 80%), and 1 moderate-risk case (66%); and prophylactic therapy for a second moderate-risk case (75%) and a high-risk case (95%). The serotonin (5-HT)3 receptor antagonists were the most commonly recommended prophylactic agents. On multivariate analysis, factors predictive of a decision for prophylactic or rescue therapy were risk estimates of nausea and vomiting, awareness of the American Society of Clinical Oncology antiemetic guideline, and European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology membership. CONCLUSIONS: Risk estimates and management strategies for RINV varied, especially for low- and moderate-risk radiation therapy cases. Radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting are under-studied treatment sequelae. New observational and translational studies are needed to allow for individual patient risk assessment and to refine antiemetic guideline management recommendations.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for patients with bone metastases: the EORTC QLQ-BM22.

AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a bone metastases module to supplement the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) or the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL for patients with bone metastases. METHODS: Phases 1-2 of module development were conducted in Canada, Australia and Germany according to EORTC QOL group guidelines. Phase 3 was conducted in nine countries in seven languages. RESULTS: Sixty-one health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues were generated from health care professionals (n=152) and patients (n=413). This resulted in a 22-item provisional module. Further testing in 170 patients from nine countries resulted in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module, containing 22 items, conceptualised into both symptom scales, with five painful sites and three pain characteristics, and also functional scales, with eight functional interference and six psychosocial aspects. CONCLUSION: This study provides a provisional comprehensive HRQOL measurement tool for future trials, which will continue to undergo further validation.