Randomized comparison of four tools measuring overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: We report on a clinical trial developed to compare four different instruments that provide overall quality-of-life (QOL) scores, ranging from a simple, one-item instrument to more detailed instruments. Two issues addressed were (1) Will QOL tools suffer from missing data when used in a community-based cooperative group setting?, and (2) Are there additional data generated by a more detailed multiitem instrument over that provided by a single-item global QOL question? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A four-arm randomized trial was designed to compare four instruments that provide overall QOL scores in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Patients and physicians completed the single-item Spitzer Uniscale (UNISCALE) at baseline and monthly. Patients were randomly assigned to complete, in addition, either the 22-item Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC), the five-item Spitzer QOL index (QLI), a picture-face scale (PICT), or nothing else. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were randomized. Greater than 90% complete QOL data were obtained. There was strong correlation, concordance, and criterion-related validity among all four patient-completed tools. The UNISCALE had a greater decrease over time than did the FLIC (P=.005), which suggests a greater sensitivity; the UNISCALE was similar to the QLI and the PICT in this regard. Physicians provided lower UNISCALE scores than patients. Results supported the hypothesis that QOL is prognostic for survival. CONCLUSION: Patients can effectively complete QOL tools in a cooperative group setting with proper education of health care providers and patients. A simple single-item tool (UNISCALE) appears to be appropriate to obtain a measure of overall QOL.

Long term use of megestrol acetate by cancer survivors for the treatment of hot flashes.

BACKGROUND: Hot flashes are often a troublesome symptom in breast carcinoma survivors and men with prostate carcinoma who have undergone androgen deprivation therapy. A previous clinical study demonstrated that, on a short term basis, low dose megestrol acetate markedly reduced hot flashes and was well tolerated. Little information has been available regarding the long term use of low dose megestrol acetate for hot flashes. METHODS: Patients previously enrolled on a randomized placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the short term use of megestrol acetate for hot flashes were contacted and interviewed by telephone. RESULTS: A total of 132 persons were contacted. Nine percent of the patients discontinued megestrol acetate after resolution of their hot flashes. Forty-five percent of the patients contacted were continuing to utilize megestrol acetate approximately 3 years beyond the conclusion of the 1992 study. Three-quarters of these patients were utilizing < or =20 mg of megestrol acetate per day. Potential toxicities attributed to megestrol acetate included episodes of chills, appetite stimulation/weight gain, vaginal bleeding, and carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients continue to use megestrol acetate for periods of up to 3 years or longer with continued control of hot flashes. This treatment appears to be relatively well tolerated.

Prospective evaluation of vitamin E for hot flashes in breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Hot flashes represent a substantial clinical problem for some breast cancer survivors. Although estrogen or progesterone preparations can alleviate these symptoms in many patients, concern remains regarding the use of hormonal preparations in such women. Thus, there is a perceived need for nonhormonal treatments for hot flashes for breast cancer survivors. Based on anecdotal evidence that vitamin E was helpful, we designed a trial to investigate this matter. METHODS: We developed and conducted a placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover trial where, after a 1 week baseline period, patients received 4 weeks of vitamin E 800 IU daily, then 4 weeks of an identical-appearing placebo, or vice versa. Diaries were used to measure potential toxicities and hot flashes during the baseline week and the two subsequent 4-week treatment periods. RESULTS: The 120 patients evaluated for toxicity failed to show any. The 105 patients who finished the first treatment period showed a similar reduction in hot flash frequencies (25% v 22%; P = .90) for the two study arms. A crossover analysis, however, showed that vitamin E was associated with a minimal decrease in hot flashes (one less hot flash per day than was seen with a placebo) (P < or = .05). At the study end, patients did not prefer vitamin E over the placebo (32% v 29%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although this trial was able to show a statistically significant hot flash reduction with vitamin E compared to a placebo, the clinical magnitude of this reduction was marginal.

Inhibition of 5-fluorouracil-induced ocular irritation by ocular ice packs.

BACKGROUND: This clinical trial was developed to determine whether ocular ice pack therapy would decrease 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-induced ocular toxicity. METHODS: Sixty-two patients who suffered from 5-FU-induced ocular toxicity, and were scheduled to receive another cycle of the chemotherapy that caused the ocular toxicity, were entered in this clinical trial. A randomized, crossover design was used, with patients documenting their ocular toxicity by the use of daily diaries. RESULTS: The results from the first cycle of treatment suggested that ocular ice pack therapy decreased 5-FU-induced ocular toxicity (P = 0.056). The 38 evaluable patients in the crossover analyses demonstrated decreased ocular toxicity with ocular ice pack therapy (p = .001). The ocular ice pack therapy was well tolerated by most of the study participants. CONCLUSION: Ocular ice pack therapy appears to lessen 5-FU-induced ocular toxicity to a clinically moderate degree. Better methods for decreasing 5-FU-induced ocular toxicity are necessary.