Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) was developed by the Victoria Hospice Society in 1996 to modernize the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Currently, it is being used to measure palliative patient performance status in a variety of settings. Despite its widespread use, only one study has examined the inter-rater reliability of the PPS. Purpose To examine the inter-rater reliability of the PPS in measuring performance status in patients seen in an outpatient palliative radiation oncology clinic Methods Performance status for 102 consecutive patients was assessed by an oncologist (MD), a radiation therapist (RT), and a research assistant (RA) in the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program at the Odette Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Raters’ scores were analyzed for correlation and compared to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the PPS tool. Results Excellent correlation was found between the scores rated by the MD and RA ( r  = 0.86); good correlation was observed between scores rated by the MD and RT ( r  = 0.69) and the RT and RA ( r  = 0.77). Scores between all three raters, as well as between rater pairs, were also found to have good reliability as measured by the Chronbach’s alpha coefficient. Significant results were obtained for the range of PPS scores in which the majority of our patients fell: 40–80%. Conclusion PPS was shown to have good overall inter-rater reliability in an outpatient palliative setting, but more research is needed to establish the validity and reliability of the tool in a variety of different palliative settings.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare functional interference and pain response outcomes using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) for patients treated with palliative radiotherapy to spine versus non-spine bones and determine if dose fractionation was associated with each group’s respective response. Materials and methods Patients treated for painful bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy during May 2003 to June 2007 were analyzed. The BPI was utilized at baseline and monthly for 6 months post-radiation. Pain response was determined using International Bone Metastases Consensus response definitions. Wilcoxon rank–sum test (for continuous variable), Fisher exact test (for categorical value), and two-way analysis of variance were used for comparisons, and a p value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Three hundred eighty-six patients were analyzed, 62% were treated with a single fraction, 38% with multiple fractions. Pain and functional interference scores significantly improved over time in both spine and non-spine sites. At 3 months, 42% of all patients had a partial response, and 25% had a complete response. Location of bone metastases and radiotherapy dose were not predictive factors for pain response nor functional interference following radiation treatment. Conclusion Spine and non-spine bone metastases exhibited similar pain and functional interference improvements over a period of 6 months post-radiotherapy. There were, however, high attrition rates as expected with palliative studies, with approximately half the patients remaining in this study by 3 months and a fifth by 6 months. A single 8 Gy resulted in equal benefits in terms of both pain response and improvement in function.

Purpose Symptom control and improved quality of life (QOL) are primary goals of treatment in palliative oncology. The present study assessed and compared patient demographics, baseline Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and QOL using the QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire prior to palliative radiotherapy (RT) for bone, brain, or lung disease. Few studies have used this questionnaire, an abbreviated version that was developed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer specifically for patients with advanced cancer to decrease the burden of completing the longer, more time-consuming QLQ-C30. Methods Patients referred to an outpatient palliative RT clinic completed QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaires prior to palliative RT for bone, brain, or lung cancer sites. The associations between baseline QLQ-C15-PAL functional/symptom scales, patient demographics, and clinical variables including KPS were explored. Results When data from all 369 patients were analyzed, higher KPS scores correlated significantly with better overall QOL and higher physical and emotional functioning. The QLQ-C15-PAL provided more detailed information regarding how symptom burden varied depending on disease site. Patients with bone metastases had worse QLQ-C15-PAL scores for pain, while those with brain and lung disease had worse scores for fatigue. Other health-related QOL scores measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL varied as a function of age and gender. Conclusion As the QLQ-C15-PAL provides detailed and often critical information regarding symptom burden, it may eventually be recognized as a universal core questionnaire to assess QOL in this patient population with advanced cancer while relieving the survey burden.

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.

Purpose The aims of this study were to determine whether symptom clusters in patients with bone metastases varied when derived using three different statistical methods and to compare the presentation of symptom clusters over time in responders and nonresponders to palliative radiation treatment (RT). Methods Secondary analysis of a previously reported data set compiled using the brief pain inventory from 348 patients with bone metastases. Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed to identify symptom clusters at baseline, 1, 2, and 3 months following radiation treatment. Clusters derived were compared with the findings obtained using principal component analysis (PCA) in our previous study. The total patient sample was further separated into two subgroups: responders and nonresponders to RT. PCA, HCA, and EFA identified symptom clusters experienced by each subgroup at the same time points as before. Results Little correlation was observed in the symptom cluster findings of PCA, EFA, and HCA in the total patient sample. Absolute consensus among all three statistical methods was never reached at any assessment time point in the present study. Varying patterns of symptom cluster presentation over time were observed in the responders versus nonresponders subgroups regardless of the analytical method employed. A core cluster of symptoms composed of worst pain, general activity, walking ability, normal work, and enjoyment of life frequently presented in the same cluster. Conclusion The presence and composition of symptom clusters derived varied depending on which statistical analysis method was employed. A key step in attaining consistency in symptom cluster research necessitates the utilization of a common method.