Quality of life in responders after palliative radiation therapy for painful bone metastases using EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BM22: results of a Brazilian cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone metastases cause pain, suffering and impaired quality of life (QoL). Palliative radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy are effective methods in controlling pain, reducing analgesics use and improving QoL. This study goal was to investigate the changes in QoL scores among patients who responded to palliative treatment. METHODS: A prospective study evaluating the role of radiation therapy in a public academic hospital in São Paulo-Brazil recorded patients' opioid use, pain score, Portuguese version of QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C30 before and 2 months after radiotherapy. Analgesic use and pain score were used to calculate international pain response category. Overall response was defined as the sum of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR). CR was defined as pain score of 0 with no increase in analgesic intake whereas PR was defined as pain reduction ≥2 without analgesic increase or analgesic reduction in ≥25% without increase in pain at the treated site. RESULTS: From September 2014 to October 2015, 25 patients with bone metastases responded to RT or chemotherapy (1 CR, 24 PR). There were 8 male and 17 female patients. The median age of the 25 patients was 59 (range, 22 to 80) years old. Patient's primary cancer site was breast [11], prostate [5], lung [2], others [7]. For QLQ-BM 22, the mean scores of 4 categories at baseline were: pain site (PS) 39, pain characteristics (PC) 61, function interference (FI) 49 and psycho-social aspects (PA) 57. At 2 month follow up, the scores were PS 27, PC 37, FI 70 and PA 59. Statistical significant improvement (P<0.05) was seen in PS, PC, FI but not PA. In the QLQ-C30, the scores were not statistically different for all categories, except for pain that demonstrated a 33 point decrease in the median pain score domain (66 to 33). CONCLUSIONS: Responders to RT at 2 months presented improvement in BM22 and C30 pain domains, and also improvement in functional interference domain of the BM22 questionnaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".