Efficacy of conventional immunosuppressants in relapsing or refractory eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: evidence from a Canadian single-centre cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the efficacy of conventional immunosuppressants in disease control of relapsing or refractory eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) compared to recently published mepolizumab and rituximab studies. METHODS: A retrospective analysis from the Toronto Vasculitis Clinic was conducted. Patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA with similar entry criteria as the main mepolizumab (MIRRA) or rituximab (case-series) studies, who were started on conventional immunosuppressants, were assessed for remission at 24- and 52-weeks. Remission was defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score of 0 and a prednisone dose of ≤4mg/day, ≤7.5mg/day, corresponding to the mepolizumab trial, or any prednisone dose per day, as in the rituximab study. RESULTS: Among 110 cohort patients, 24 with relapsing or refractory EGPA met eligibility criteria. Conventional immunosuppressants used were methotrexate (n=15), azathioprine (n=8) or leflunomide (n=1). Remission rates at 24-weeks were 8.3% with prednisone ≤4mg/day (vs. 28.0% in the mepolizumab trial); 41.6% with prednisone ≤7.5mg/day (vs. 45% in the mepolizumab trial) and 62.5% with any prednisone dose (vs. 34% in the rituximab study). Remission at 52-weeks was 50.0% with any prednisone dose (vs. 49% in the rituximab study), whereas sustained remission at week 52 (as of week 24) was 4.2% with prednisone ≤4mg/day (vs. 19% in the mepolizumab trial), and 33.3% with prednisone ≤7.5mg/day (vs. 24% in the mepolizumab trial). CONCLUSIONS: Though our study was small and retrospective, rates of remission observed with conventional immunosuppressants were substantial. This should be kept in mind when interpreting results of placebo-controlled or retrospective studies on biologics in EGPA.

Management of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting with palonosetron in patients with pre-existing emesis: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Approved almost 15 years ago for use in the chemotherapy setting, palonosetron, a 2nd generation 5-hydroxtryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), has demonstrated efficacy in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, its utility in the prophylaxis and treatment of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) has yet to be evaluated. In this pilot study, we investigated the rates of control in RINV in patients with pre-existing emesis. METHODS: Patients with pre-existing emesis undergoing palliative radiotherapy to sites with emetic risk were prescribed palonosetron 0.5 mg before the start of radiation treatment, and every other day until completion of treatment. Patients were followed up in acute (day 1 of treatment to day 1 after treatment) and delayed phases (days 2-10 after treatment). Prophylaxis and rescue (PR) was defined as a decrease in anti-emetic use, or episodes of nausea and/or vomiting from baseline. Complete prophylaxis (CP) was defined as no increase in anti-emetic use, or episodes of nausea and/or vomiting. Secondary endpoints included control of nausea and quality of life (QOL), as assessed with the Functional Living Index-Emesis and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 15 Palliative. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were enrolled. Rates of control were higher in the acute phase (n=14) for nausea (PR =42.9%, CP =42.9%) and vomiting (PR =21.4%, CP =71.4%) compared to the delayed phase (n=13) for nausea (PR =42.9%, CP =7.7%) and vomiting (PR =15.4%, CP =53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron appears to be safe and patients with pre-existing emesis receiving palliative radiotherapy. More studies are needed to investigate its efficacy in this patient population.

A pilot study with palonosetron in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Palonosetron is an effective antiemetic in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but has yet to be studied in the radiation setting. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). METHODS: Patients without existing nausea and vomiting undergoing palliative radiotherapy to sites with emetic risk were prescribed palonosetron 0.5 mg orally before the start of radiation treatment, and every other day until completion of treatment. Patients were followed up in acute (day 1 of treatment to day 1 after treatment) and delayed phases (days 2-10 after treatment). The primary endpoint was control of vomiting. Complete control was defined as no use of rescue medication and no episodes of nausea or vomiting. Secondary endpoints included control of nausea and quality of life (QOL). QOL was assessed with the Functional Living Index-Emesis and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire-Core 15 Palliative (C15-PAL). RESULTS: In all evaluable patients (n=75), complete control of vomiting was 93.3% in the acute phase and 93.2% in the delayed phase. Complete control of nausea was 74.7% in the acute phase and 74.0% in the delayed phase. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest improved control in RINV compared to historical reports with first generation serotonin receptor antagonists (RA). A randomized study will be needed to confirm this finding.

Estimating prognosis at the time of repeat whole brain radiation therapy for multiple brain metastases: The reirradiation score.

PURPOSE: Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) remains the standard of care for patients with multiple brain metastases, but more than half of treated patients will develop intracranial progression. Because there is no clear consensus on the optimal therapeutic approach, a prognostic index would be helpful to guide treatment options at progression. We explored whether the recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) score prior to repeat WBRT is predictive of survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This multi-institutional pooled analysis included patients with 2 or more brain metastases from any solid primary tumor that was treated with 2 courses of WBRT. Information on demographics, disease characteristics, and intervals between courses was collected. RPA class was abstracted or retrospectively assigned, and descriptive statistics calculated. Median survival (MS) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log rank tests. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed via Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: For 205 patients, the median age was 55 years (range, 25-83 years), 68% were female, 40.5% had non-small cell lung cancer, and 31.2% had small cell lung cancer. Prior to the second WBRT, 4.9% of patients were RPA class 1, 36.6% were RPA2, and 58.5% were RPA3, with an MS of 7.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-10.3), 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.7-6.7 months), and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.2-2.9 months), respectively (P = .001). On univariate and multivariate analyses, a Karnofsky Performance Status of <80, extracranial metastases, interval between courses <9 months, small cell lung cancer histology, and uncontrolled primary significantly correlated with shorter MS. By assigning a score of 1 to each of these factors, a new prognostic index was created, the reirradiation (ReRT) score. Survival on the basis of ReRT score grouping ranged from 2.2 to 7.2 months and demonstrated significant differences in MS. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest reported cohort to receive repeat WBRT, application of the RPA score was not predictive of MS. The new ReRT score is a simple tool based on readily available clinical information.

Quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden (SB) in patients with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden (SB) among breast cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with DCIS, early stage, locally advanced, or metastatic breast cancer completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Breast Cancer (FACT-B). Patients were divided into subsequent cohorts based on their last day of treatment, age at enrollment, radiation, chemotherapy, and hormone therapy. RESULTS: A total of 1513 patients were enrolled. Metastatic patients had a lower QOL and greatest SB compared to all other patient groups. Patients ≤50 years old with early stage or locally advanced breast cancer had a lower QOL and greater SB for fatigue, depression, and anxiety compared to all other age cohorts. Patients with early stage breast cancer who received chemotherapy had a lower QOL and greater SB. Patients taking selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) had greater SB for depression and lower QOL compared to those not on SERM. Patients 2-10 years post-treatment had a lower QOL compared to patients ≥10 years post-treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients ≤50 years old, 2-10 years post-treatment, treated with chemotherapy or SERM had increased SB and decreased QOL. Individualized interventions and programs can be developed to tailor to physical, educational, and psychosocial needs identified across the breast cancer continuum.

Quality of life and symptom burden in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to examine the symptom burden (SB) and quality of life (QOL) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Breast cancer patients with metastases were asked to complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and FACT-B questionnaires. Statistical analysis was performed to identify (1) any differences in SB and QOL between patients with bone metastases only and patients with visceral +/- bone metastases and (2) any associations between SB and/or QOL and various clinical factors, including treatment with bisphosphonates, participation in a clinical trial and presence of brain metastases. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were enrolled. Treatment with bisphosphonates was significantly associated with lower ESAS well-being scores (less symptoms) in patients with bone metastases only. In this same group, receiving treatment prior to diagnosis of metastases was significantly associated with increased fatigue, anxiety and dyspnoea. The presence of brain metastases was associated with higher physical well-being scores (increased QOL). Participation in clinical trials was associated with better QOL. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients with metastases have different SB and QOL in relation to the type of the metastases, treatment interventions and participation in clinical trials.

Quality of life with Brain Symptom and Impact Questionnaire in patients with brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: To examine the baseline characteristics of patients who underwent different treatments for brain metastases. METHODS: Allocated into group A [whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) alone], or group B [stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or neurosurgery with or without WBRT], brain metastases patients with assigned treatment completed the Brain Symptom and Impact Questionnaire (BASIQ). Items of BASIQ were arranged as a symptom score or function score. RESULTS: Lung, breast, melanoma and renal cancer were the most prevalent primary cancer site among the study population, with 91 (53%), 25 (15%), 17 (10%) and 15 (9%) patients, respectively. Baseline BASIQ results were obtained before patients were treated with WBRT, neurosurgery, or SRS. Seventy-six (44%) and 96 patients (56%) were grouped to A and B, respectively. Group A reported lower quality of life (QOL) in all function scores (P<0.0001) and all symptom scores (P values from <0.0001 to 0.005) with the exception of energy (P=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QOL in patients assigned WBRT alone was statistically worse as compared to patients assigned SRS, neurosurgery with or without WBRT.

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: While the efficacy of olanzapine in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been documented, the literature on the use of olanzapine as a rescue medication for breakthrough CINV has been scarce. The following study retrospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of olanzapine for the treatment of breakthrough CINV. The efficacy and safety of olanzapine in the prophylactic setting was also examined in a smaller cohort. METHODS: Electronic medical records of adult patients aged >17 years receiving a prescription for olanzapine from the Odette Cancer Centre Pharmacy at Sunnybrook Hospital between January 2013 and June 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Inclusion criteria required receiving one or more doses of olanzapine for the rescue or prophylaxis of CINV and documentation of the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients and 193 treatment cycles were included in the breakthrough setting, while a total of 16 patients and 20 treatment cycles were included in the prophylaxis setting. In the breakthrough setting, 88% of cases experienced improved nausea, while 21% of cases reported improved vomiting. In the prophylactic setting, 100% of cases experienced improved nausea, while 65% achieved improved vomiting. A total of 43% of cases in the breakthrough setting and 65% of cases in the prophylactic setting experienced sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine is effective in improving CINV in both the prophylactic and breakthrough settings. The safety, efficacy, and appropriate dosage of olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough CINV should be prospectively evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Inter-rater reliability in performance status assessment among health care professionals: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported that performance status (PS) is a good prognostic indicator in patients with advanced cancer. However, different health care professionals (HCPs) could grade PS differently. The purpose of this review is to investigate the PS scores evaluated by different HCPs as reported in the literature. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE from 1946 to Present (July 5, 2015), Embase Classic and Embase from 1947 to 2015 Week 26, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to May 2015. Information of interest was whether there was a difference of PS assessment between HCPs. Other statistical information provided to assess the agreement in ratings, such as Cohen's kappa coefficient, Krippendorff's alpha coefficient, Spearman Rank Coefficient, and Kendall's correlation, was noted. RESULTS: Of the fifteen articles, eleven compared PS assessments between HCPs of different disciplines, one between the attending and resident physician, two between similarly-specialized physicians, and one between two unspecified-specialty physicians. Three studies reported a lack of agreement (kappa =0.19-0.26; Krippendorff's alpha =0.61-0.63), four reported moderate inter-rater reliability (kappa =0.31-0.72), two reported mixed reliability, and six reported strong reliability (kappa =0.91-0.92; Spearman rank correlation =0.6-1.0; Kendall's correlation =0.75-0.82). Four studies reported that Karnofsky performance status (KPS) had better inter-rater reliability than both the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the palliative performance scale (PPS). CONCLUSIONS: The existing literature cites both good and bad inter-rater reliability of PS scores. It is difficult to conclude which HCPs' PS assessments are more accurate.

The impact of psychosocial intervention on survival in cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of psychosocial interventions on survival remains controversial in patients with cancer. A meta-analysis of the recent literature was conducted to evaluate the potential survival benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched from January 2004 to May 2015 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared survival outcomes between cancer patients receiving a psychosocial intervention and those receiving other, or no interventions. Endpoints included one-, two-, and four-year overall survival. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare group-versus individually-delivered interventions, and to assess breast cancer-only trials. RESULTS: Of 5,080 identified articles, thirteen trials were included for analysis. There was a significant survival benefit for the intervention group at one year [risk ratio (RR) =0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.00; P=0.04] and two years (RR =0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95; P=0.003). However, no significant difference was detected at four years (RR =0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04; P=0.24). Among patients with breast cancer, there was a significant survival benefit of psychosocial interventions at one year (RR =0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.82; P=0.002), but no difference at two years (RR =0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P=0.07) or four years (RR =0.95; 95% CI, 0.73-1.23; P=0.68). Group-delivered interventions had a significant survival benefit favouring the intervention group at one year (RR =0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.79; P=0.0008), but no difference at two years (RR =0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.02; P=0.08) or four years (RR =0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20; P=0.64). Individually-delivered interventions had no significant survival benefit at one year (RR =0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.08; P=0.32), two years (RR =0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; P=0.05), or four years (RR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.04; P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: For the main analysis and group-delivered treatments, psychosocial interventions demonstrated only short-term improvements in survival. Individually-delivered interventions failed to show any survival benefit. Future studies with longer follow-up are warranted to investigate long-term survival outcomes.

Do patients with brain metastases selected for whole brain radiotherapy have worse baseline quality of life as compared to those for radiosurgery or neurosurgery (with or without whole brain radiotherapy)?

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to examine the baseline characteristics, symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients who receive different treatments for brain metastases. METHODS: Eligible patients were divided and analysed based on their treatment: whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) alone versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or neurosurgery with or without WBRT. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br) items were grouped according to different domains for summary scores. The domains used for summary scores were physical, social/family, emotional, functional well-being (FWB) and additional concerns. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled, with 37 treated with WBRT alone and 83 with SRS or neurosurgery with or without WBRT. Of the 50 baseline FACT-Br items, only five items (I feel ill; I get support from my friends; I worry about dying; I have difficulty expressing my thoughts, I am able to put my thoughts into action) were statistically worse in patients treated with WBRT alone (P<0.05). Patients who received SRS or surgery with or without WBRT had statistically (P<0.05) higher scores for the FWB domain, additional concerns domain, and FACT-G total scores, indicating better QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients selected for WBRT alone reported statistically different baseline QOL as compared to patients who were treated with SRS or neurosurgery (with or without WBRT).

Comparison of the EORTC STO-22 and the FACT-Ga quality of life questionnaires for patients with gastric cancer.

This review compares the development, characteristics, validity, and reliability of two well-known quality of life (QOL) assessment tools used in patients with gastric cancer: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Stomach (EORTC QLQ-STO22) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga). A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (inception to April 2015) to identify studies that discussed the development, characteristics, validity and reliability of the EORTC QLQ-STO22 or the FACT-Ga. The QLQ-STO22 was developed with collaboration with patients, healthcare professionals and literature review and was mainly field tested in European countries. Conversely, items on the FACT-Ga were generated from interviews with patients and healthcare professionals concurrently in North America and Asia. While both modules involve a 7-day recall period and use Likert scales, the QLQ-STO22 and FACT-Ga differ in terms of QOL domain focus, quantity and presentation of items, response options, and scoring. However, both tools show good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change and construct validity. In addition, both questionnaires have been internationally validated within a large sample of patients undergoing a variety of treatments, thus demonstrating their cross-cultural applicability. The EORTC QLQ-STO22 and FACT-Ga are both valid and reliable tools with unique strengths and weaknesses. Selection between instruments should consider specific patient characteristics and goals of the study.

The accuracy of clinicians' predictions of survival in advanced cancer: a review.

The process of formulating an accurate survival prediction is often difficult but important, as it influences the decisions of clinicians, patients, and their families. The current article aims to review the accuracy of clinicians' predictions of survival (CPS) in advanced cancer patients. A literature search of Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE was conducted to identify studies that reported clinicians' prediction of survival in advanced cancer patients. Studies were included if the subjects consisted of advanced cancer patients and the data reported on the ability of clinicians to predict survival, with both estimated and observed survival data present. Studies reporting on the ability of biological and molecular markers to predict survival were excluded. Fifteen studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified. Clinicians in five studies underestimated patients' survival (estimated to observed survival ratio between 0.5 and 0.92). In contrast, 12 studies reported clinicians' overestimation of survival (ratio between 1.06 and 6). CPS in advanced cancer patients is often inaccurate and overestimated. Given these findings, clinicians should be aware of their tendency to be overoptimistic. Further investigation of predictive patient and clinician characteristics is warranted to improve clinicians' ability to predict survival.

Latest advances in the management of radiation-induced pain flare, nausea and vomiting.

Palliative radiotherapy (RT) is an effective treatment for symptomatic bone metastases. However, pain flare, nausea and vomiting are common adverse effects associated with this treatment. The management of pain flare and radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) are important endpoints in palliative care. Our report documents the incidence, clinical importance, and advances in the management of these two adverse-effects. We recommend that antiemetic prophylaxis be given based on emetic risk category as outlined in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines. Newer antiemetics investigated in the chemotherapy setting should also be studied in the radiation setting. As there are no guidelines for the use of pain flare prophylaxis at present, further research in this area is needed.

Quality of life and symptom burden in patients with breast cancer treated with mastectomy and lumpectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Mastectomy (MAS) and lumpectomy (LUMP) are the two common local surgical treatments for early breast cancer. There has been a debate whether MAS or LUMP results in better quality of life (QOL). The purpose of this study was to examine the symptom burden (SB) and QOL of both MAS and LUMP patients. METHODS: Patients at the Louise Temerty Breast Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, were approached to complete two self-administered questionnaires, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) cancer edition. Additionally, patient demographics were recorded from medical records. Patients were divided into two cohorts depending on their surgical treatment: MAS and LUMP. The QOL and SB, assessed by FACT-B and ESAS, respectively, of MAS and LUMP patients were compared. The analysis was repeated excluding patients with metastases. RESULTS: From January to August 2014, 614 MAS and 801 LUMP patients were accrued. The MAS patients reported a lower QOL in all categories, except social well-being. There was however no statistical difference in ESAS scores for MAS and LUMP patients with non-metastatic breast cancer. CONCLUSION: This study supports existing literature that SB of MAS and LUMP patients without metastases are similar. QOL of MAS patients including those with metastases was lower than that of LUMP patients.

The Brain Symptom and Impact Questionnaire in brain metastases patients: a prospective long-term follow-up study.

AIMS: To assess the ability of the Brain Metastases Symptom and Impact Questionnaire (BASIQ) in evaluating symptoms and impact on daily life. PATIENTS & METHODS: Patients with brain metastases completed BASIQ, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, FACT-Brain at baseline and at 1, 2 and 3 months follow-ups. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients completed all follow-ups. BASIQ correlated well (r ≥ 0.40) with FACT subscales, except for social/family and emotional wellbeing. Linear regression analysis found no significant changes in quality of life (QOL) over time in both the BASIQ and FACT scales. Therefore, the two questionnaires coincide as both detected nonchanges. CONCLUSION: The ability of the BASIQ in evaluating symptoms and impact on over longer assessment periods was supported by the FACT questionnaires.

Inadequate pain management in cancer patients attending an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of undertreated cancer pain in an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic using the Pain Management Index (PMI). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospective database to assess pain management was done on patients with cancer pain enrolled from January 2009 to March 2015 using recorded pain intensity (0-10) and baseline pain medications. The pain intensities were categorized into no pain (0), mild pain (1), moderate pain (2), and severe pain (3), and an analgesic score was assigned to the most potent pain medication the patient was taking during the time of data collection. "0" was assigned to no analgesics, "1" to non-opioids, "2" to weak opioids, and "3" for strong opioids based on the WHO guidelines. The PMI was calculated for each patient by subtracting the pain score from the analgesic score. A negative value indicated undertreatment, and a value of 0 or greater corresponded to adequate pain management. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-four patients were included in the study. The incidence of inadequate pain management was 33.3 %, similar to that reported in our previous studies. Additionally, 106 patients were taking strong opioids and reporting severe pain despite being the PMI reporting adequately treated. CONCLUSION: The rate of undertreatment is similar to that reported in past studies; however, the rates have shown a slight increase in our palliative radiotherapy clinic since the last assessment. Inadequate management of cancer pain continues to be a problem.

A novel prospective descriptive analysis of nausea and vomiting among patients receiving gastrointestinal radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Nausea and vomiting are common side effects from radiotherapy that can interfere with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients' quality of life (QOL). This study described the subjective experience of patients with radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) and its relation to QOL. METHODS: Forty-eight patients treated with abdominal radiotherapy alone or with concomitant chemoradiotherapy were followed in a prospective study. All episodes of nausea, vomiting, and antiemetic use were recorded daily for the treatment period and the week following completion of therapy. QOL was assessed weekly using the Functional Living Index-Emesis QOL Tool (FLIE) and the EORTC QLQ-C30 core questionnaire (C30). RESULTS: In total, 351 episodes of nausea severity, duration, onset time, and 154 outcomes of vomiting onset times and contents were documented. The median nausea severity experienced per episode was 5 (on a scale from 1 to 10), and the most common durations of nausea were 30 min or less and constant nausea all day and night. The most common location of nausea was the abdomen. Longer nausea duration, great nausea severities, and the location of nausea experienced had significant adverse relationships to multiple QOL items on both the FLIE and the C30. In addition, the onset timing and number of vomiting episodes were related to the majority of all FLIE and QOL scores. CONCLUSION: Patient's subjective experiences of RINV directly correlated to the worsening of QOL outcomes. The identification and amelioration of these RINV experiences could improve QOL.

Quality of life after palliative radiotherapy in bone metastases: A literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the quality of life (QOL) following palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in OvidSP Medline (1946-Jan Week 4 2014), Embase (1947-Week 5 2014), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Dec 2013) databases. The search was limited to English. Subject headings and keywords included 'palliative radiation', 'cancer palliative therapy', 'bone metastases', 'quality of life', and 'pain'. All studies (prospective or retrospective) reporting change in QOL before and after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases were included. RESULTS: Eighteen articles were selected from a total of 1730. The most commonly used tool to evaluate QOL was the Brief Pain Inventory. Seventeen studies collected data prospectively. An improvement in symptoms and functional interference scores following radiotherapy was observed in all studies. The difference in changes in QOL between responders and non responders was inconsistently reported. CONCLUSION: QOL improves in patients who respond to palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases.

Use of urinary markers in cancer setting: A literature review.

INTRODUCTION: In bone metastases, the disruption of normal bone processes results in increased resorption and formation rates, which can often be quantitatively measured by biomarkers in the urine and blood. The purpose of this review is to summarize relevant studies of urinary markers used as a diagnostic and/or prognostic tool, as well as its potential and advances in directing therapy. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to July 2014), EMBASE (1950 to 2014 week 30) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (3rd Quarter 2014) to identify studies that detailed the use of urinary markers in the cancer setting, specifically involving markers for bone metastases. Search terms included "urinary markers", "cancer", and "bone metastases". RESULTS: A total of 35 articles, with 24 original studies, were identified. In general, urinary markers can be used to detect early signs of bone metastases prior to skeletal imaging, but still must be used in conjunction with imaging to avoid false positive results. The use of urinary markers, such as N-telopeptide, as a prognostic tool remains controversial, but can provide information on the relative risk of skeletal related events (SREs), disease progression, as well as death. Finally, while urinary markers have shown to be potentially useful in confirming the efficacy of bone metastases treatments, exploring the appropriate dosages for treatment, and directing therapy, it is still unclear to what extent urinary markers should be reduced by. CONCLUSION: The potential use of urinary markers in the management of bone metastases is promising as it can allow for earlier and more convenient detection of bone metastases in comparison to other techniques. However, additional studies involving prospective clinical trials are suggested to further examine the potential of urinary markers in developing appropriate treatment strategies and endpoints, especially in developing a clearer protocol on the extent urinary markers should be reduced by to correlate with achievement of clinical benefit.