Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to J Pater.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To determine which formats for presenting health-related quality of life (HRQL) data are interpreted most accurately and are most preferred by cancer patients. Patients often want a great deal of information about cancer treatments, including information relevant to HRQL. Clinical trials provide methodologically sound HRQL data that may be useful to patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter study, 198 patients with previously treated cancer participated in a structured interview. Participants judged HRQL information presented in one textual and five graphical formats. Outcome measures included the accuracy of patients' interpretations and ease-of-use and helpfulness ratings for each format. RESULTS: Correct interpretations ranged from 85% to 98% across formats (F = 10.3, P < .0001) with line graphs of mean HRQL scores over time being interpreted correctly most often. Older patients and less-educated patients were less likely to interpret graphs accurately (F = 7.3, P = .008; and F = 10.6, P = .001, respectively), but all groups were most accurate on simple line graphs. Multivariate analysis revealed that format type, participant age and education were independent predictors of accuracy rates. Patients' ratings also varied across formats both for ease of understanding scores (F = 12.1, P < .0001) and for helpfulness scores (F = 13.2, P < .0001), with line graphs being rated highest on both outcomes. CONCLUSION: Patients generally prefer a simple linear representation of group mean HRQL scores, and can accurately interpret data presented in this format more than 98% of the time irrespective of their age group and educational level. The findings have important implications for the communication of clinical trial HRQL results.
Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a prevalent outcome measure in clinical trials, but it is not known how best to communicate HRQL results to new patients with cancer. The purpose was to explore cancer patients' attitudes toward, and preferences for, 10 visual and written formats for communicating HRQL information. Using standardized qualitative methods, six focus groups were held (two groups in each of three cancer centres) with patients who had completed treatment for cancer at least 6 months earlier. Groups were stratified according to patients' education. To ensure consistency across centres, group moderators used the same detailed guide, training video, and props. Three investigators independently coded the resulting transcripts. Participants also rated each of the 10 presentation formats as to their perceived usefulness. Fourteen men and 19 women with a variety of cancer diagnoses participated; 13 (39%) participated in the three lower-education groups and 20 (61%) in the three higher-education groups. We found that simple formats (simple graphs or written text) were generally preferred to more complex graphical information, regardless of educational level. The same format was rated favourably by the highest proportion of participants in both the high (85%) and low (85%) education level groups. Individual patients, however, varied as to which visual format they most preferred. Patients did not wish to receive HRQL information out of context or without explanation. We conclude that cancer patients desire HRQL information, but vary in their preferences for its communication. Simple formats are generally preferred.
PURPOSE: Morbidity associated with wound complications may translate into disability and quality-of-life disadvantages for patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremities. Functional outcome and health status of extremity STS patients randomized in a phase III trial comparing preoperative versus postoperative RT is described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred ninety patients with extremity STS were randomized after stratification by tumor size dichotomized at 10 cm. Function and quality of life were measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating Scale (MSTS), the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) at randomization, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-five patients had function data. Patients treated with postoperative RT had better function with higher MSTS (25.8 v 21.3, P <.01), TESS (69.8 v 60.6, P =.01), and SF-36 bodily pain (67.7 v 58.5, P =.03) scores at 6 weeks after surgery. There were no differences at later time points. Scores on the physical function, role-physical, and general health subscales of the SF-36 were significantly lower than Canadian normative data at all time points. After treatment arm was controlled for, MSTS change scores were predicted by a lower-extremity tumor, a large resection specimen, and motor nerve sacrifice; TESS change scores were predicted by lower-extremity tumor and prior incomplete excision. When wound complication was included in the model, patients with complications had lower MSTS and TESS scores in the first 2 years after treatment. CONCLUSION: The timing of RT has minimal impact on the function of STS patients in the first year after surgery. Tumor characteristics and wound complications have a detrimental effect on patient function.
PURPOSE: Mucositis occurs in almost all patients treated with radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. The aim of this multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized trial was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an economically viable antimicrobial lozenge (bacitracin, clotrimazole, and gentamicin [BcoG]) in the alleviation of radiation-induced mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-seven eligible patients were randomized to treatment with either antimicrobial lozenge (69 patients) or placebo lozenge (68 patients). The primary end point of the study was the time to development of severe mucositis from the start of radiotherapy. Secondary end points included severity and duration of mucositis, pain measurement, radiation therapy interruption, and quality of life. Mucositis was scored using a validated mucositis scoring system. RESULTS: Toxicity profiles were similar between the two arms of the study. The median time to development of severe mucositis from the start of radiotherapy was 3.61 weeks on BCoG and 3.96 weeks on placebo (P =.61). There were no statistically significant differences between the arms in the extent of severe mucositis as measured by physician, in oral toxicities as recorded by patients, or in radiotherapy delays. CONCLUSION: This study was conducted on the basis of a pilot study that demonstrated the BCoG lozenge to be tolerable and microbiologically efficacious. A validated mucositis scoring system was used. However, in this group of patients treated with conventional radiotherapy, the lozenge did not impact significantly on the severity of mucositis. Whether such a lozenge would be beneficial in treatment situations where rate of severe mucositis is higher (ie, in patients treated with unconventional fractionation or with concomitant chemotherapy) is unknown.
BACKGROUND: Studies in medical fields other than ophthalmology have given conflicting results regarding the reliability of the time trade-off technique of utility assessment. We performed a study to determine the test-retest reliability of the time trade-off technique for assessing utilities in patients with ocular diseases of the retina and to investigate possible factors associated with differences in utility over time. METHODS: Patients referred to the retina service of a tertiary care hospital in eastern Canada were eligible for the initial interview if they had best corrected vision of 20/30 or worse in at least one eye and were deemed competent to answer the required questions. Patients were interviewed prospectively between December 1999 and March 2000 during a normal 30-minute period needed for pharmacologic mydriasis to occur. Demographic, clinical (including Snellen visual acuity) and time trade-off utility information was collected through chart review and standardized interview. Patients who completed the interview successfully were called back 28 days later for follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 138 eligible patients 112 (81.2%) completed the initial interview. Of the 112, 96 (85.7%) completed the second interview. Half of the respondents were women, and all but one respondent were white. The mean age was 65.3 years. The primary reasons for visual loss included diabetic retinopathy (59 patients [61.4%]) and age-related macular degeneration (14 patients [14.6%]). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the initial and follow-up visual utilities was 0.7634 (95% confidence interval 0.6655-0.8355). INTERPRETATION: Our results show excellent reliability of the time trade-off technique of utility assessment in patients with ocular diseases of the retina.
AIM: Previous studies report a high prevalence of proteinuria in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). This common syndrome may therefore be an important cause ofproteinuria and renal failure in the general population. This study was undertaken to assess the prevalence of proteinuria among OSAS patients, and to identify the factors associated with urine protein excretion in these patients. METHODS: Overnight polysomnography, urine protein to creatinine ratio (PTCR), body mass index (BMI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and hematocrit were assessed prospectively in 224 patients referred for evaluation of suspected OSAS. Sleep apnea was defined as apnea-hypopnea score (AHS) > or = 5 events/hour. Proteinuria was defined as PTCR > 0.2 mg/mg. RESULTS: Sleep apnea was present in 143 subjects (63.8%), and proteinuria in 10 (4.5%). The highest PTCR was 0.677 mg/mg. PTCR and AHS were weakly correlated (r = 0.12, p = 0.08). PTCR correlated (alpha = 0.05) with lowest oxygen saturation (r = -0.18, p = < 0.01), time spent with oxygen saturation below 90% (r = 0.19, p = < 0.01), and BMI (r= 0. 17, p = < 0.01). The mean PTCR was similar in subjects with and without sleep apnea. Proteinuria was present in 7 of 143 (4.9%) subjects with AHS > or = 5 and 3 of 81 (3.7%) subjects with AHS < 5, a relative risk of 1.34, 95% CI (0.34, 5.32). Predictors of LogPTCR in multiple linear regression (model R2 - 0.104) were: AHS (< 5 or > or = 5), baseline oxygen saturation, sex, and MAP. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant proteinuria is uncommon in OSAS. The prevalence and severity of proteinuria are similar in both OSAS patients and patients without sleep-disordered breathing. Sleep apnea severity is weakly associated with urine protein excretion, related more to hypoxemia than to frequency of apneic events.
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic for patients receiving fractionated radiotherapy to the upper abdomen in a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-four patients planned to receive fractionated radiotherapy to fields involving the upper abdomen (minimum total dose, 20 Gy; minimum number of fractions, five) were randomized to receive prophylactic dexamethasone (2 mg orally three times a day [tid], starting in the morning of first treatment and continuing until after their fifth treatment) or placebo. The primary end point of the study was the proportion of patients free from emesis during the study period. Secondary end points included a quality-of-life assessment using the core questionnaire of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and side effects of dexamethasone therapy in this population of patients. RESULTS: Fifty-four (70%) out of 75 patients receiving dexamethasone had complete protection versus 37 (49%) out of 75 patients on placebo (P = .025). Most emetic episodes occurred during the initial phase of treatment. Although there was no difference in global quality of life between the two sets of patients, patients receiving dexamethasone had less nausea and vomiting and less loss of appetite but more insomnia. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone 2 mg tid seems to be an effective prophylactic antiemetic in this situation. Side effects were acceptable, but there seemed to be no overall effect on global quality of life.
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of age on the delivery, tolerance, and efficacy of thoracic irradiation (TI) for limited small cell lung cancer (L-SCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a retrospective review of data from 608 patients 80 years or less with L-SCLC, who participated in two previously reported randomized trials (BR3 and BR.6) of the National Cancer Institute of Canada. All patients received the same chemotherapy, consisting of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine (CAV), and etoposide cisplatin (EP) delivered either in sequential or alternating sequence. In BR.3, TI was given after chemotherapy with randomization to 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions. In BR.6, TI (40 Gy in 15 fractions) was given concurrently with EP with randomization to either the early (with cycle 2, week 4) or late (with cycle 6, week 16) arm. RESULTS: A total of 665 patients entered these two trials. Of these, 608 patients were eligible for analysis, 300 in BR.3 and 308 in BR.6. Five hundred and twenty patients were under age 70 and 88 patients were 70 years or older. Baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. In BR3, 179 patients (60%) participated in radiotherapy randomization (61% young, 52% elderly), and 176 patients actually received TI. In BR.6, randomization occurred at study entry for all patients, and 282 (91.6%) patients received TI (92% young, 88% elderly). More patients of both age groups randomized to receive late TI did not receive TI (13% and 14%) than those randomized to the early TI arm (3%) of BR.6. We could identify no tendency to reduce field sizes to minimize toxicity in either age group at higher doses of TI. Once TI was started, there was no difference between the two age groups with regards to the proportion of patients who completed TI, although elderly patients were less likely to complete high dose TI. Of those who completed TI, there was no difference in the time to complete TI, mean dose delivered or in the incidence of acute and late TI-related toxicities. No statistical difference in response rate, local relapse rate, or overall survival was seen between young and older age groups. CONCLUSION: In summary, in the dose range examined, age does not appear to impact on the delivery, tolerance or efficacy of TI in the combined modality management of L-SCLC. Potentially curative combined modality treatment should not be withheld on the basis of age.
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors predictive of overall survival after first relapse or primary progression in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: "Tree-structured prediction of survival for censored survival data" was used to identify the independent prognostic factors in the test group (n = 352) who were the patients from the previously reported Canadian OV.8 trial. A prognostic model was developed using these factors and subjected to validation in the Canadian OV.4 trial cohort (n = 282). RESULTS: Based upon three factors, time from diagnosis to first recurrence or progression, tumor grade at diagnosis, and ECOG performance status at original diagnosis, three groups of patients were identified. These were labeled as good, intermediate, and poor prognosis with median survivals post relapse of 18 (12), 6 (5), and 1 (2) months, respectively. The figure in parentheses is the survival in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: These prognostic groupings enable us to recommend second-line treatment more logically. The patients in the poor prognosis group have such a limited survival that cancer shrinking therapy should not routinely be offered. In addition the use of the individual predictive factors as stratification factors will help to avoid erroneous conclusions about treatment efficacy.
Previous studies conducted by our group suggested that the ability to demonstrate an impact of emesis control on quality of life might depend upon when an quality of life instrument was administered in relation to chemotherapy and on the time frame of the questionnaire. This study was conducted to address this issue. Six hundred and fifty patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in a randomized trial comparing a variety of anti-emetic regimens were allocated to four different modes of administration (days 4 and 8; 3 and 7 day time frames) of the QLQ-C30. Patients who completed the questionnaire at the time of maximal impact of chemotherapy (day 3) were more likely to report deterioration in quality of life. Patients who completed questionnaires at day 8 were more likely to report deterioration in quality of life if their questionnaire had a 7 day time frame rather than a 3 day time frame. Patients receiving more effective anti-emetic therapy had better quality of life. It was concluded that better anti-emetic control improves quality of life after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In studying quality of life in situations where the impact of treatment waxes and wanes, careful attention needs to be paid to scheduling the administration of questionnaires and to their time frame.
PURPOSE: To determine the significance to patients of changes in health-related quality-of-life (HLQ) scores assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A subjective significance questionnaire (SSQ), which asks patients about perceived changes in physical, emotional, and social functioning and in global quality of life (global QL) and the QLQ-C30 were completed by patients who received chemotherapy for either breast cancer or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). In the SSQ, patients rated their perception of change since the last time they completed the QLQ-C30 using a 7-category scale that ranged from "much worse" through "no change" to "much better." For each category of change in the SSQ, the corresponding differences were calculated in QLQ-C30 mean scores and effect sizes were determined. RESULTS: For patients who indicated "no change" in the SSQ, the mean change in scores in the corresponding QLQ-C30 domains was not significantly different from 0. For patients who indicated "a little" change either for better or for worse, the mean change in scores was about 5 to 10; for "moderate" change, about 10 to 20; and for "very much" change, greater than 20. Effect sizes increased in concordance with increasing changes in SSQ ratings and QLQ-C30 scores. CONCLUSION: The significance of changes in QLQ-C30 scores can be interpreted in terms of small, moderate, or large changes in quality of life as reported by patients in the SSQ. The magnitude of these changes also can be used to calculate the sample sizes required to detect a specified change in clinical trials.
PURPOSE: The administration of fluorouracil (5-FU) by continuous intravenous infusion (CI) is an alternative to the bolus administration of 5-FU in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Although more than 1,200 patients have been enrolled onto randomized trials that compared these two treatment modalities, there is still no definitive evidence of an advantage of 5-FU CI, and the magnitude of this advantage, if any, is also controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to assess this benefit in terms of tumor response and survival, and to compare the toxicity profiles of these two modalities of administration of 5-FU. DESIGN: Individual data of 1,219 patients included in six randomized trials served as the basis for this meta-analysis, which was conducted by an independent secretariat in close collaboration with the investigators. RESULTS: Tumor response rate was significantly higher in patients assigned to 5-FU CI than in patients assigned to 5-FU bolus (22% v 14%; overall response odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.41 to 0.75; P = .0002). Overall survival was also significantly higher in patients assigned to 5-FU CI (overall hazards ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.99; P = .04), although the median survival times were close. Multivariate analyses showed that randomized treatment and performance status were the only two significant predictors of tumor response, whereas the same plus primary tumor site were independent significant predictors of survival (patients with rectal cancer did somewhat better). Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity was more frequent in patients assigned to 5-FU bolus (31% v 4%; P < 10(-16)), whereas hand-foot syndrome was more frequent in the 5-FU CI group (34% v 13%; P < 10(-7)). CONCLUSION: 5-FU CI is superior to 5-FU bolus in terms of tumor response and achieves a slight increase of overall survival. The hematologic toxicity is much less important in patients who receive 5-FU CI, but hand-foot syndrome is frequent in this group of patients.
PURPOSE: Fluorouracil (5-FU) continuous infusion is superior to 5-FU bolus in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, but the survival difference between the two treatments is small and, therefore, the difference in toxicity profile is crucial in choosing a treatment for individual patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized trials that compared 5-FU bolus with 5-FU CI, based on individual data from 1,219 patients, to compare the toxicity of the two schedules of 5-FU administration and to identify predictive factors for toxicity. The toxicities considered were World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 to 4 anemia, thrombopenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, mucositis, and hand-foot syndrome. RESULTS: Hematologic toxicity, mainly neutropenia, was more frequent with 5-FU bolus than with 5-FU CI (31% and 4%, respectively; P < .0001). Hand-foot syndrome was less frequent with 5-FU bolus than with 5-FU CI (13% and 34%, respectively; P < .0001). There was no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of other nonhematologic toxicities. Independent prognostic factors were age, sex, and performance status for nonhematologic toxicities, performance status, and treatment for hematologic toxicities, and age, sex, and treatment for hand-foot syndrome. CONCLUSION: Based on a large data set, this study confirmed and quantified the toxicity profile of the two schedules of administration of 5-FU and allowed the identification of clinical predictors of toxicity.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the roles of granisetron and dexamethasone for emesis control on days 2 through 7 after the administration of cisplatin in doses of 50 mg/m2 or greater to patients who had not previously received chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred thirty-five eligible and assessable patients were randomized to one of two arms in a double-blind fashion: arm A; granisetron 3 mg intravenous (i.v.) plus dexamethasone 10 mg i.v. prechemotherapy followed by granisetron 1 mg orally at 6 and 12 hours, then granisetron 1 mg orally and dexamethasone 8 mg orally twice daily on days 2 through 7 (219 patients); arm B; as in arm A but with placebo substituted for granisetron on days 2 through 7 (216 patients). All patients completed diaries in which episodes of emesis and severity of nausea were recorded. RESULTS: The addition of granisetron on days 2 through 7 had no discernable impact on nausea and vomiting during this period. CONCLUSION: The administration of a 5-hydroxytryptamine3, receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, in this case granisetron, after 24 hours conferred no benefit. This negative result needs to be assessed in light of conflicting literature, but at present it does not appear that the routine use of these drugs in this setting is justified.
PURPOSE: In a randomized trial conducted by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG), interferon alpha-2b (IFN) maintenance therapy (2 mU/m2 subcutaneously three times per week) after successful induction with melphalan and prednisone was found to prolong time to progression in patients with multiple myeloma. A favorable effect on survival was also present, but this difference was of borderline significance. However, IFN toxicity was a concern. To evaluate the trade-off between the clinical benefits of IFN and the associated toxicity, we applied the method of quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three clinical health states were defined in this analysis: time with toxicity (TOX), time without disease relapse or toxicity (TWiST), and time following disease relapse (REL). Toxicity information for IFN had been collected using patient-completed diaries so the actual duration of each adverse event could be determined. The health states TOX and REL were weighted using utility scores to account for a possible decrement in quality of life, a weighted sum of the health state durations is used as a measure of quality-adjusted time. RESULTS: The health state durations were calculated at 72 months median follow-up. Patients in the IFN group gained an average of 9.8 months without disease relapse (P = .001) and 5.8 months of overall survival (P = .074) versus the control group. However, the IFN group suffered an average of 4.1 months of moderate or worse toxicity (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The clinical benefits of IFN outweigh the negative effects associated with treatment toxicity for a wide range of plausible utilities.
The purpose was to measure the effects of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting (PCNV) on health-related quality of life (HQL) in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The study sample consisted of 832 chemotherapy-naive patients with cancer who received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy as part of multicenter trials of new antiemetics. The patients completed the self-report European Organization for Research and Cancer (EORTC) core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) before chemotherapy (baseline) and 1 week (day 8) and 2-4 weeks after chemotherapy. They also completed a self-report nausea and vomiting (NV) diary for 5-7 days after chemotherapy. To determine the effects of PCNV on HQL, the change in scores between the baseline and day 8 HQL assessments was calculated for each domain and symptom in the QLQ-C30 and compared in four subgroups of patients: those with both nausea and vomiting, those with nausea but no vomiting, those with no nausea but with vomiting, and those with neither nausea nor vomiting. The group with both nausea and vomiting showed statistically significantly worse physical, cognitive and social functioning, global quality of life, fatigue, anorexia, insomnia and dyspnea as compared to the group with neither nausea nor vomiting (0.0001 < P < 0.05). Patients with only nausea but no vomiting tended to have less worsening in functioning and symptoms than those having both nausea and vomiting. Increased severity of vomiting (> 2 episodes) was associated with worsening of only global quality of life and anorexia as compared with 1-2 episodes of vomiting (0.0001 < P < 0.01). By 2-4 weeks after chemotherapy all HQL scores had either returned to their baseline levels or were better than baseline. PCNV adversely affects several quality-of-life domains, but patients with only nausea experience less disruption than do those with both nausea and vomiting. Patients with 1-2 episodes of vomiting experience almost the same degree of disruption of HQL as do patients with more than 2 episodes of vomiting.