Browsing Clinical Oncology by Subjects
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
Comparison of patient-reported late treatment toxicity (LENT-SOMA) with quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35) assessment after head and neck radiotherapy.PURPOSE: The patient's role in toxicity reporting is increasingly acknowledged but requires the adaptation and validation of toxicity reporting instruments for patient use as most toxicity scales are designed for physician use. Recording of radiotherapy related late toxicity is important and needs to be improved. A patient-scored symptom questionnaire of late treatment effects using LENT-SOMA was compared with a recognised quality of life tool (EORTC QLQ-C30/H&N35). MATERIALS/METHODS: LENT-SOMA and EORTC QLQ-C30 patient questionnaires were prospectively completed by 220 head and neck cancer patients over 3years and 72 completed EORTC QLQ-H&N35 questionnaires at 2years post-radiotherapy. RESULTS: Endpoints common to both questionnaires (pain, swallowing, dental pain, dry mouth, opening mouth, analgesics) were matched. Spearman rank correlation coefficients with rho>0.6 (P<0.001) were obtained for all "matched" scales except for analgesics scale, rho=0.267 (P<0.05). There was good agreement between LENT-SOMA and EORTC QLQ-H&N35 except for analgesic endpoints. Global quality of life scores correlated negatively with average LENT-SOMA scores (P<0.001). Significant differences in average LENT-SOMA scores between treatment modalities were found. The LENT-SOMA questionnaire has demonstrated a high Cronbach's alpha value (0.786) indicating good reliability. CONCLUSIONS: LENT-SOMA patient questionnaire results agreed well with those from the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 questionnaire for toxicity items where they could be compared explicitly, particularly for subjective endpoints. Patient-reported late toxicity had a negative impact on quality of life. The LENT-SOMA patient questionnaire is both reliable and sensitive to differences between patients treated with different modalities. A patient-based questionnaire is an important contributor to capturing late radiotherapy effects.
The European Respiratory Society and European Society of Thoracic Surgeons clinical guidelines for evaluating fitness for radical treatment (surgery and chemoradiotherapy) in patients with lung cancer.The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) established a joint task force with the purpose to develop clinical evidence-based guidelines on evaluation of fitness for radical therapy in patients with lung cancer. The following topics were discussed, and are summarized in the final report along with graded recommendations: Cardiologic evaluation before lung resection; lung function tests and exercise tests (limitations of ppoFEV1; DLCO: systematic or selective?; split function studies; exercise tests: systematic; low-tech exercise tests; cardiopulmonary (high tech) exercise tests); future trends in preoperative work-up; physiotherapy/rehabilitation and smoking cessation; scoring systems; advanced care management (ICU/HDU); quality of life in patients submitted to radical treatment; combined cancer surgery and lung volume reduction surgery; compromised parenchymal sparing resections and minimally invasive techniques: the balance between oncological radicality and functional reserve; neoadjuvant chemotherapy and complications; definitive chemo and radiotherapy: functional selection criteria and definition of risk; should surgical criteria be re-calibrated for radiotherapy?; the patient at prohibitive surgical risk: alternatives to surgery; who should treat thoracic patients and where these patients should be treated?