Health-related quality of life after stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with brain metastases.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and to identify factors associated with this. METHODS: HRQoL was measured pre-SRS, at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Physical functioning, cognitive functioning, role functioning, and fatigue were analyzed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Motor dysfunction, future uncertainty, visual disorder, communication deficit, and headaches were analyzed with the EORTC QLQ-BN20. Clinically important symptom or functional impairment was assessed following set thresholds. Factors associated with impairment were identified through multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: At baseline, 178 patients were included; 54% (n=96) completed questionnaires at 3 months and 39% (n=70) at 6 months. Before SRS, 29% of linear accelerator (LINAC) patients reported physical and cognitive impairment, while 25% reported impairment for fatigue. At 6 months, 39%, 43%, and 57% of LINAC patients reported impairment respectively. Forty-five percent of Gamma Knife (GK) patients reported impairment pre-SRS for physical, cognitive functioning, and fatigue. At 6 months, 48%, 43%, and 33% of GK patients reported impairment respectively. Except for role functioning, pre-SRS symptom and functioning scores were associated with impairment at 3 months, whereas scores at 3 months were associated with impairment at 6 months. Age, gender, systemic therapy, and intracranial progression were not associated with clinically important impairment. CONCLUSION: As 33-57% of patients with brain metastases reported symptom burden and functional impairments that were of clinical importance, it is recommended to pay attention to the HRQoL outcomes of these patients during clinical encounters.

Self-Reported Cognitive Function and Quality of Life in Patients With SCLC in the Hippocampal Avoidance Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Versus Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Randomized Phase 3 Trial (NCT01780675).

Introduction: In the randomized controlled trial in patients with SCLC comparing standard prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) with hippocampal avoidance PCI (HA-PCI), we did not observe beneficial effects of HA-PCI on tested cognition. Here, we report findings on self-reported cognitive functioning (SRCF) and quality of life (QoL). Methods: Patients with SCLC were randomized to receive PCI with or without HA (NCT01780675) and assessed at baseline (82 HA-PCI and 79 PCI patients) and at 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up, using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC QLQ-brain cancer module (BN20). SRCF was assessed with the cognitive functioning scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire. A change of 10 points was used for minimal clinically important differences. Percentages of patients classified with having improved, stable, or deteriorated SRCF were compared between groups using chi-square tests. Changes in mean scores were analyzed using linear mixed models. Results: There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with deteriorated, stable, or improved SRCF between the treatment arms. Depending on the evaluated time point, 31% to 46% and 29% to 43% of patients in the HA-PCI and PCI arm, respectively, reported a deteriorated SRCF on the basis of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and Medical Outcomes Study. QoL outcomes were not significantly different between the study arms, except for physical functioning at 12 months (p = 0.019) and motor dysfunction at 24 months (p = 0.020). Conclusions: Our trial did not find beneficial effects of HA-PCI over PCI on SRCF and QoL. The cognitive benefit of sparing the hippocampus in the context of PCI is still a subject of debate.

Neurocognitive functioning after Gamma Knife and LINAC stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Brain metastases (BM) themselves and treatment with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can influence neurocognitive functioning. This prospective study aimed to assess neurocognitive decline in patients with BM after SRS. METHODS: A neuropsychological test battery was assessed yielding ten test outcomes. Neurocognitive decline at 3 and 6 months post SRS was compared to measurement prior to Gamma Knife (GK) or linear accelerator (LINAC) SRS. Reliable change indices with correction for practice effects were calculated to determine the percentage of neurocognitive decline (defined as decline on ≥ 2 test outcomes). Risk factors of neurocognitive decline were analyzed with binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 194 patients pre-SRS, 40 GK and 29 LINAC patients had data accessible at 6 months. Compared to baseline, 38% of GK patients declined at 3 months, and 23% declined at 6 months. GK patients declined on attention, executive functioning, verbal memory, and fine motor skill. Of LINAC patients, 10% declined at 3 months, and 24% at 6 months. LINAC patients declined on executive functioning, verbal memory, and fine motor skills. Risk factors of neurocognitive decline at 3 months were high age, low education level and type of SRS (GK or LINAC). At 6 months, high age was a risk factor. Karnofsky Performance Scale, BM volume, number of BM, tumor progression and neurocognitive impairment pre-SRS were no risk factors. CONCLUSION: Neurocognitive decline occurs in a considerable proportion of patients with BM treated with GK or LINAC SRS. Overall, high age appears to be a risk factor for neurocognitive decline after SRS.

Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy.

PURPOSE: The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. This systematic literature review evaluated evidence for graphic visualization formats of PROMs data in clinical practice for patients and clinicians, for both individual and group level PROMs data. METHODS: Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were extracted from CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Medline. Studies included patients ≥ 18 years old in daily clinical practice. Papers not available in English, without full-text access, or that did not specifically describe visualization of PROMs data were excluded. Outcomes were: visualization preferences; interpretation accuracy; guidance for clinical interpretation. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of 789 papers were included for final analysis. Most frequently studied formats were: bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PROMs scores over time. Clinicians' interpretation accuracy and preferences were similar among graphic visualization formats. Scores were most often compared with patients' own previous scores; to further guide clinical interpretation, scores were compared to norm population scores. Different 'add-ons' improved interpretability for patients and clinicians, e.g. using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels, and brief definitions. CONCLUSION: There was no predominant graphical visualization format approach in terms of preferences or interpretation accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Detailed clarification of graph content is essential.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) capture patients' self-reported health through the use of questionnaires. PROMs measure health related quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom experience, which are becoming increasingly important to incorporate in clinical practice for individual patient management. To present PROMs within clinical practice, raw or summarized PROMs scores can be visualized in graphical formats. To be useful during clinical encounters, both patients and clinicians ought to interpret such formats correctly. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate evidence for graphic visualization formats of PROMs data in clinical practice. In 25 included papers, most studies used graphical formats like bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts for presenting PROMs scores. There was no predominant graphical visualization format approach in terms of preferences or interpretation accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PROMs scores over time. Clinicians' interpretation accuracy and preferences were similar among graphic visualization formats. The graphical interpretation of PROMs data for patients and clinicians can be improved by using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels, and brief definitions.