Local treatment in oligometastasis from breast cancer: an overview

Oligometastasic breast cancer (OMBC) consists of breast cancer patient with a limited number of systemic metastases (≤ 5), all of them candidates for local ablative treatment with the intention of achieving long-term control of the metastasis and, eventually, an increase in survival The first consensus for the management of patients with oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC) was published in 2007, establishing that a more aggressive multidisciplinary strategy is recommended in order to increase the survival while maintaining a good quality of life. The current scientific evidence is based on observational studies, mainly retrospective, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and only a randomized nonexclusive study of oligometastatic (OM) published. All trials with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in OM cancer have shown excellent tolerance and good local control, although first trials on Lung SBRT did not prove so excellent tolerance and had some deaths due to bronchus irradiation and secondary hemoptysis. There are multiple ongoing studies researching the benefit of SBRT in oligometastatic breast cancer. Despite the lack of impact on survival seen in the NRG BR-002 Trial, SBRT probably allows the delay of the systemic treatment until progression, and so, improves the quality of life of patients. We have to wait for the results of the ongoing and future studies for clarification of the role of local treatment in OMBC (AU)

The eortc quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30 (version 3.0). Validation study for Spanish prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The EORTC Quality of Life Group has developed a questionnaire for evaluating Quality of Life in international clinical trials: EORTC QLQ-C30, which is widely used in many countries. The purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the third version of this questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0), when applied to Spanish prostate cancer patients. METHODS: A sample of 137 prostate cancer patients prospectively filled in the questionnaire three times: on the first and last day of the treatment, and in the followup period. Psychometric evaluation of the structure, reliability and validity was made. RESULTS: Multitrait scaling analysis showed that most item-scale correlation coefficients met the standards of convergent and discriminant validity. Few exceptions appeared mainly in CF Most scales had low to moderate inter-correlations. Cronbach's coefficients of the scales were above 0.7, except for the CF and NV values. Group comparison analyses showed better QL in patients with higher Performance Status. Changes in functioning and symptom areas appeared throughout the different measurements, which were in line with the treatment process. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC QLQC30 (version 3.0) appeared as a reliable and valid instrument when applied to a sample of Spanish prostrate cancer patients. The results are in line with previous studies.

The EORTC Quality of life questionnaire OLO-C30 (version 3.0). Validation study for Spanish prostate cancer patients / Cuestionario de calidad de vida QLQ-C30 (versión 3.0): Estudio de validación en español con pacientes con cáncer de próstata

Objective: The EORTC Quality of Life Group has developed a questionnaire for evaluating Quality of Life in international clinical trials: EORTC QLQ-C30, which is widely used in many countries. The purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the third version of this questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0), when applied to Spanish prostate cancer patients. Methods: A sample of 137 prostate cancer patients prospectively filled in the questionnaire three times: on the first and last day of the treatment, and in the follow-up period. Psychometric evaluation of the structure, reliability and validity was made. Results: Multitrait scaling analysis showed that most item-scale correlation coefficients met the standards of convergent and discriminant validity. Few exceptions appeared mainly in CF. Most scales had low to moderate inter-correlations. Cronbach's coefficients of the scales were above 0.7, except for the CF and NV values. Group comparison analyses showed better QL in patients with higher Performance Status. Changes in functioning and symptom areas appeared throughout the different measurements, which were in line with the treatment process. Conclusions: The EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) appeared as a reliable and valid instrument when applied to a sample of Spanish prostrate cancer patients. The results are in line with previous studies (AU)

Objetivo: El Grupo de Calidad de Vida de la EORTC ha desarrollado un cuestionario para evaluar la Calidad de Vida en ensayos clínicos internacionales: EORTC QLQ-C30, el cual es ampliamente utilizado en muchos países. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar las propiedades psicométricas de la tercera versión de este cuestionario, EORTC QLQ-C30 (versión 3.0), al ser administrado a pacientes españoles con cáncer de próstata. Métodos: Una muestra de 137 pacientes con cáncer de próstata han contestado el cuestionario de forma prospectiva tres veces: el primer y último día de tratamiento, y durante el período de seguimiento. Se ha realizado una evaluación psicométrica de su estructura, fiabilidad y validez. Resultados: los análisis multirasgo-multimétodo han mostrado que la mayoría de las correlaciones ítem-escala satisfacían los criterios de validez convergente y divergente. Se han dado pocas excepciones, principalmente en la escala CF. La mayoría de las correlaciones entre escalas eran bajas o moderadas. Los coeficientes Alpha de Cronbach de las escalas eran superiores a 0,7, excepto en las escalas CF y NV. Los análisis de comparación entre grupos han indicado que se da una mejor Calidad de Vida en pacientes con mayor performance status. Se han dado cambios en áreas de funcionamiento y de síntomas a lo largo de las diferentes medidas, que han ido en línea con el proceso de tratamiento. Conclusiones: el EORTC QLQ-C30 (versión 3.0) se ha mostrado como un instrumento fiable y válido al ser aplicado a una muestra de pacientes españoles con cáncer de próstata. Los resultados van en línea con los estudios de validación previos (AU)

Quality of Life assessment through the EORTC questionnaires of colorectal cancer patients in advanced disease stages.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present work is to evaluate Quality of Life in a group of colorectal cancer patients in advanced stages of their disease, along a standard chemotherapy treatment protocol, through the EORTC core questionnaire QLQ-C30 and the colorectal cancer module QLQ-CR38. These two questionnaires had previously been validated in our country. The present study has the novelty of its use during the chemotherapy treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive sample of 44 colon o rectal cancer patients in stage IV, from an initial group of 46 patients who were addressed, have filled in the questionnaires, in three moments during their treatment process. Clinical and demographic data have also been recorded. Quality of Life scores and changes in them among the three assessments have been calculated. RESULTS: The quality of life scores of patients who have followed the treatment have been >70 points (100) in most dimensions, and has shown similar to the clinical data. Changes of >20 points in the quality of life scores during the treatment process appear in areas related to toxicity, fatigue and insomnia. Quality of life has been stable or has had small changes (between 10 and 20 points) in most dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of Life in the present sample has been good in general. The treatment has been administered to patients who could tolerate it adequately.

Quality of Life assessment through the EORTC questionnaires of locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative chemo-radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the quality of life in a group of rectal cancer patients during the treatment period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 83 rectal cancer patients in Dukes' stages B2 or C who started a chemoradiotherapy treatment followed by surgery, have filled in the EORTC core questionnaire QLQC30 and the colorectal module QLQ-CR38, in three moments during the treatment and follow-up periods: at the beginning of the treatment, at the end of the chemoradiotherapy, and after surgery. Clinical and demographic data have also been recorded. Quality of Life scores and changes in them among the three assessments have been calculated. RESULTS: Quality of life scores of patients who have followed the treatment has been good in most dimensions, and has shown similar to the clinical data. Soft and moderate alterations have appeared in the areas of disease symptoms, treatment toxicity, fatigue, emotional and sexual functioning, and also in functional areas after surgery. Quality of life has been stable or has had small changes in most dimensions. A worsening in toxicity areas has appeared after the neoadyuvant treatment. After surgery there has been a worsening in functional areas, fatigue and appetite loss, and an improvement in diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life scores and clinical data indicate that the situation of the patients who have received the treatments has been good. Patients under treatment stood it adequately.

Quality of Life assessment through the EORTC questionnaires of locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated with preoperative chemo-radiotherapy

No disponible

Purpose. To assess the quality of life in a group ofrectal cancer patients during the treatment period.Material and methods. A sample of 83 rectal cancerpatients in Dukes’ stages B2 or C who started achemoradiotherapy treatment followed by surgery,have filled in the EORTC core questionnaire QLQC30and the colorectal module QLQ-CR38, in threemoments during the treatment and follow-up periods:at the beginning of the treatment, at the end ofthe chemoradiotherapy, and after surgery. Clinicaland demographic data have also been recorded.Quality of Life scores and changes in them amongthe three assessments have been calculated.Results. Quality of life scores of patients who havefollowed the treatment has been good in most dimensions,and has shown similar to the clinical data.Soft and moderate alterations have appeared inthe areas of disease symptoms, treatment toxicity,fatigue, emotional and sexual functioning, and alsoin functional areas after surgery. Quality of life hasbeen stable or has had small changes in most dimensions.A worsening in toxicity areas has appeared afterthe neoadyuvant treatment. After surgery there hasbeen a worsening in functional areas, fatigue andappetite loss, and an improvement in diarrhoea.Conclusions. Quality of life scores and clinical dataindicate that the situation of the patients who havereceived the treatments has been good. Patients undertreatment stood it adequately

Quality of life in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Comparison of two protocols using the EORTC questionnaires (QLQ-C30, H and N35).

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to assess the quality of life (QoL) of two groups of patients during treatment for locally advanced head and neck (H and N) cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two samples of 30 patients each in AJCC stages III and IV undergoing either of two chemo-radiotherapy protocols completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 general questionnaire and the QLQ-H and N35 H and N module on three occasions during the treatment and follow-up periods. We also collected clinical data. The QoL scores and their evolution over the three measurements were calculated and both protocols were compared during the treatment period. RESULTS: The QoL scores are acceptable in general. Limitations were observed in relation to toxicity, psycho-social and some functional areas during the treatment. QoL improved in the follow-up period. The clinical and QoL data are better in one of the two treatment protocols. DISCUSSION: The QoL scores indicate that the condition of the patients receiving the protocols was acceptable, considering the severity of their disease. The treatments were reasonably-well tolerated.

Quality of life in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Comparison of two protocols using the EORTC questionnaires (QLQ-C30, H&N35)

Introduction. The objective of this study is to assess the quality of life (QoL) of two groups of patients during treatment for locally advanced head and neck (H&N) cancer. Material and methods. Two samples of 30 patients each in AJCC stages III and IV undergoing either of two chemo-radiotherapy protocols completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 general questionnaire and the QLQ-H&N35 H&N module on three occasions during the treatment and follow-up periods. We also collected clinical data. The QoL scores and their evolution over the three measurements were calculated and both protocols were compared during the treatment period. Results. The QoL scores are acceptable in general. Limitations were observed in relation to toxicity, psycho-social and some functional areas during the treatment. QoL improved in the follow-up period. The clinical and QoL data are better in one of the two treatment protocols. Discussion. The QoL scores indicate that the condition of the patients receiving the protocols was acceptable, considering the severity of their disease. The treatments were reasonably-well tolerated

Concomitant boost radiation and concurrent cisplatin for advanced head and neck carcinomas. Preliminary results of a phase II, single-institutional trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to asses the effectiveness and toxicity of boost radiotherapy concomitant and concurrent cisplatin for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were 30 patients included in a prospective, phase II single-institution trial and of whom, 29 were at AJCC stage IV and 1 at stage III. Treatment consisted of radiotherapy acceleration fractionation with concomitant boost, 72 Gy, and 2 cycles of concomitant cisplatin (20 mg/m2/day continuous infusion; days 1-5 and 29-33). Amifostine, (i.v. 200 mg/m2) was administered to 26 prior to the first fraction of radiotherapy. Endpoints of the study were quality-of-life (QL), overall survival, and local control of disease. RESULTS: Complete response (CR) was achieved in 23 patients (77%), 2 patients had partial response (PR) (7%), 4 had no response (13%), and 1 was not evaluated for response. The 2-year overall survival and loco-regional control were 60% and 56%, respectively. Main toxicity was grade 3 or 4 mucositis in 93% of the patients. QL scores (questionnaire QLQC30; version 3.0) and the HN cancer module QLQ-HN35) showed a worsening in areas related to the treatment e.g. dry mouth, problems stretching the mouth, and sticky saliva. CONCLUSIONS: this combination modality is active, but toxic, in the treatment for LAHNC. Concomitant boost radiotherapy is probably, not the best radiotherapy schema for combining with chemotherapy in LAHNC.

Concomitant boost radiation and concurrent cisplatin for advanced head and neck carcinomas. Preliminary results of a phase II, single-institutional trial

No disponible

Introduction. This study aims to asses the effectiveness and toxicity of boost radiotherapy concomitant and concurrent cisplatin for patients with locallyadvanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC). Material and methods. There were 30 patients included in a prospective, phase II single-institution trial and of whom, 29 were at AJCC stage IV and 1 at stage III. Treatment consisted of radiotherapyacceleration fractionation with concomitant boost, 72 Gy, and 2 cycles of concomitant cisplatin (20 mg/m2/day continuous infusion; days 1-5 and 29-33). Amifostine, (i.v. 200 mg/m2) was administered to 26 prior to the first fraction of radiotherapy. Endpoints of the study were quality-of-life (QL), overall survival, and local control of disease. Results. Complete response (CR) was achievedin 23 patients (77%), 2 patients had partial response (PR) (7%), 4 had no response (13%), and 1 was not evaluated for response. The 2-year overall survival and loco-regional control were 60% and 56%, respectively. Main toxicity was grade 3 or 4 mucositis in 93% of the patients. QL scores (questionnaire QLQC30; version 3.0) and the HN cancer module QLQ-HN35) showed a worsening in areas related to thetreatment e.g. dry mouth, problems stretching the mouth, and sticky saliva. Conclusions. this combination modality is active, but toxic, in the treatment for LAHNC. Concomitant boost radiotherapy is probably, not the best radiotherapy schema for combining with chemotherapy in LAHNC