Amanda Caissie

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.

Assessment of Health-related Quality of Life with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL after Palliative Radiotherapy of Bone Metastases

AIMS To assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases using a palliative questionnaire (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients scheduled to receive palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases (n=178) completed the QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire before treatment and at week 1, week 2, month 1 and month 2 after the first day of radiotherapy. A partial response (PR) or a complete response (CR) to radiotherapy was defined according to the International Consensus criteria. General linear regression was used to analyse changes in QOL in the entire cohort and within responders and non-responders to radiotherapy at all follow-up periods. RESULTS The overall radiotherapy response was 45% at week 1 (n=21) (41% PR, 4% CR), 62% at week 2 (n=28) (58% PR, 4% CR), 62% at month 1 (n=58) (60% PR, 2% CR) and 65% at month 2 (n=38) (60% PR, 5% CR). In general, a significant decrease in pain (P<0.0001), insomnia (P<0.0001) and constipation (P=0.004) was seen by month 1 after radiotherapy. In patients who responded to radiotherapy, overall QOL significantly improved by month 2 after radiotherapy (P=0.002). Radiotherapy responders also reported an improvement in emotional functioning together with a decrease in symptoms such as insomnia and constipation at month 1. No improvements were seen in any of the QLQ-C15-PAL scores for patients whose pain did not respond to radiotherapy. CONCLUSION Radiotherapy responders showed not only an improvement in pain, but also in HRQOL as assessed by QLQ-C15-PAL. As early as 1 week after radiotherapy for bone metastases, a pain relief response was reported by patients.

FACT-Br for assessment of quality of life in patients receiving treatment for brain metastases: a literature review

Introduction: Brain metastases are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with advanced cancers, and quality-of-life (QoL) end points are most appropriate for this population. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) questionnaires are commonly used to assess cancer-related QoL issues. The FACT-Brain (FACT-Br) provides an additional set of disease-specific questions pertaining to brain neoplasms. We aim to provide a comprehensive review to examine the use of the FACT-Br as a QoL assessment for patients with brain metastases. Materials & methods: A review of the literature was conducted and all studies utilizing the FACT-Br for QoL assessment of patients with brain metastases were included. Study information and relevant information regarding the FACT-Br were extracted. Results: A total of 14 studies were identified representing various treatment options (radiation, chemotherapy and surgery) for patients with brain metastases. All studies utilized at least part of the FACT-Br as the main QoL assessment. In addition, neurocognitive and performance status assessments were performed in nine and 12 out of 14 studies, respectively. Issues of poor accrual, compliance and attrition were common and posed problems in reaching statistically significant changes in QoL despite changes in raw QoL scores. Conclusion: Studies involving patients with brain metastases should continue to utilize QoL tools such as the FACT-Br; however, this tool still requires validation for use in this patient population. Additional studies should observe the relationship between neurocognitive function and QoL, and attempt to minimize poor accrual and compliance issues through modifications of trial design and reduction of patient burden.

The EORTC QLQ-BN20 for assessment of quality of life in patients receiving treatment or prophylaxis for brain metastases: a literature review

Introduction: Brain metastases occur in approximately 20–40% of cancer patients during the course of disease. As treatment for brain metastases is palliative over curative, quality of life (QoL) is emphasized over prolonged survival. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-BN20 is a QoL assessment specific to brain neoplasms. We aim to provide a review of the current use of the EORTC QLQ-BN20 for patients with brain metastases. Materials & methods: All studies utilizing the QLQ-BN20 for QoL assessment in patients receiving treatments related to brain metastases were included. Study information including treatment type, assessment periods, patient enrolment and all information pertaining to the QLQ-BN20 were extracted. Results: A total of 13 studies were identified, five of which were randomized trials assessing prophylactic whole brain radiation for patients with small-cell lung cancer. The QLQ-BN20 was used in conjunction with the core QLQ-C30 questionnaire in all but one of the studies and together these comprised the entire QoL assessments for 11 of the 13 studies. Neurocognitive function assessments supplemented QoL in four studies and accompanying performance status indices used with the QLQ-BN20 varied. Compliance issues were commonly cited. QoL changes during study periods varied as improvements, deteriorations and stabilizations were all observed. Conclusion: QoL assessments should be conducted using disease-specific tools. Future studies should minimize patient burden in order to maximize data collection and accrual. A common set of QoL end points for patients with brain metastases should be created.

Comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Pal for assessment of quality of life in patients with advanced cancer

Shorter quality-of-life (QoL) assessments are beneficial for palliative patients as they reduce burden associated with completing personal, and at times stressful, questionnaires. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Palliative Care (FACIT-Pal) are two palliative QoL tools that have been validated for use in this population. The purpose of this article was to conduct a review of studies utilizing these two palliative-specific QoL instruments, their development and their relative strengths for use in advanced cancer patients. Studies detailing the development process for the QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Pal were identified. A comparison between both questionnaires in terms of development, characteristics, validation and use was conducted. The QLQ-C15-PAL was developed via structured shortening of the longer core instrument, the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), whereas the FACIT-Pal includes the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General tool plus a new 19-item palliative scale created through interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Although significant overlap exists between both tools, there is a marked difference in the aspects of QoL assessed. Scoring, organization and item format are different; however, response options and recall period are the same. Both tools cover the core items relevant to patients with advanced cancers and can be supplemented with disease-specific tools. Both QLQ-C15-PAL and FACIT-Pal allow for assessment of QoL issues specific to patients with advanced diseases. Each instrument has unique strengths and weaknesses and choice between these tools is dependent on the investigator and study needs. Future studies should directly compare these two tools and validate their use through a number of administration modes.

Directly Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment Through Peer Review: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Cancer Centers Across a Provincial Cancer Program

PURPOSE To describe the outcomes of peer review across all 14 cancer centers in Ontario. METHODS AND MATERIALS We identified all peer-reviewed, curative treatment plans delivered in Ontario within a 3-month study period from 2013 to 2014 using a provincial cancer treatment database and collected additional data on the peer-review outcomes. RESULTS Considerable variation was found in the proportion of peer-reviewed plans across the centers (average 70.2%, range 40.8%-99.2%). During the study period, 5561 curative plans underwent peer review. Of those, 184 plans (3.3%) had changes recommended. Of the 184 plans, the changes were major (defined as requiring repeat planning or having a major effect on planning or clinical outcomes, or both) in 40.2% and minor in 47.8%. For the remaining 12.0%, data were missing. The proportions of recommended changes varied among disease sites (0.0%-7.0%). The disease sites with the most recommended changes to treatment plans after peer review and with the greatest potential for benefit were the esophagus (7.0%), uterus (6.7%), upper limb (6.3%), cervix and lower limb (both 6.0%), head and neck and bilateral lung (both 5.9%), right supraclavicular lymph nodes (5.7%), rectum (5.3%), and spine (5.0%). Although the heart is an organ at risk in left-sided breast treatment plans, the proportions of recommended changes did not significantly differ between the left breast treatment plans (3.0%, 95% confidence interval 2.0%-4.5%) and right breast treatment plans (2.4%, 95% confidence interval 1.5%-3.8%). The recommended changes were more frequently made when peer review occurred before radiation therapy (3.8%) than during treatment (1.4%-2.8%; P=.0048). The proportion of plans with recommended changes was not significantly associated with patient volume (P=.23), peer-review performance (P=.36), or center academic status (P=.75). CONCLUSIONS Peer review of treatment plans directly affects the quality of care by identifying important clinical and planning changes. Provincial strategies are underway to optimize its conduct in radiation oncology.

176: Measuring Uptake of the Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (CPQR) Programmatic Key Quality Indicators (KQI): A Pan-Canadian Audit of Compliance

withdrawn 181 PATIENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY OF EARLY-STAGE BREAST CANCER PATIENTS UNDERGOING WHOLE BREAST RADIOTHERAPY Grace Lee, Robert Dinniwell, Anthony Fyles, Tatiana Conrad, Kathy Han, Wilfred Levin, Fei-Fei Liu, Susanne Lofgren, Alexandra Koch-Fitsialos, Gerald Devins, Nora Emad, Bethany Pitcher, Tony Panzarella, Anne Koch Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Purpose: Adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) is a standard treatment option in women with early-stage breast cancer following lumpectomy. Timeliness of RT treatment can impact patient satisfaction. The objectives of this study are to assess: 1) patient satisfaction of their whole breast RT; 2) patient preference for timing of RT start after CT simulation (CTSim); and 3) factors that influence patient stress and quality of life. Methods and Materials: Women undergoing whole breast RT were given a survey before RT treatment and at treatment completion. Patients were offered treatment either through the conventional process (ConvProcess), where RT starts typically within 1-2 weeks of CTSim, or the QuickStart (QS) process, where RT starts one day after CTSim. The pre-treatment (PRE-Tx) survey included questions to understand the social impact of RT, and the post-treatment (POST-Tx) survey included questions relating to social climate and patient satisfaction. Questions relating to RT start preference, stress (Perceived Stress Scale [PSS]) and quality of life (Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale [IIRS]), were assessed both at PRE-Tx and POST-Tx. An analysis of covariance was used to determine if the RT process impacted PSS and IIRS, and t-tests were used as a secondary analysis. Fisher’s Exact test was used where appropriate. Results: Ninety-six patients completed the PRE-Tx survey and 88 completed both surveys (QS process n = 28; ConvProcess n = 60). All patients indicated they had a positive experience with the RT