Palliative Radiotherapy Improves Pain and Reduces Functional Interference in Patients with Painful Bone Metastases: A Quality Assurance Study
Abstract
Aims
To characterise the effect of palliative radiotherapy treatment outcomes as evaluated by the Brief Pain Inventory within a radiotherapy clinic, as a quality assurance initiative.
Materials and methods
Tumour and treatment parameters of patients with painful bone metastases treated through a dedicated bone pain radiotherapy clinic have been prospectively recorded since 2002. One hundred and nine ambulatory patients provided pre- and post-treatment pain assessments at 4–6 weeks after palliative radiotherapy. The self-administered Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire was completed by patients during their visits. Changes in pain and seven-item functional interference scores were analysed.
Results
Most of the patients had prostate (n
=
42) or breast (n
=
42) cancer. The mean Karnofsky performance score was 70 before palliative radiation therapy. Sixty-eight per cent of patients were treated with a single fraction (6–8
Gy) and 25% received 20
Gy/five fractions. The overall response (reduction in worst pain by ≥2/10) was 72%. Sixty-one per cent of patients had stable or reduced consumption of opioid analgesics. A significant reduction for all seven functional interference items was seen after treatment, the greatest improvement being general activity (−2.4/10). There was significant correlation between pain reduction and improvement in functional interference.
Conclusion
This quality assurance initiative showed that palliative radiotherapy reduced both pain and its interference on function among ambulatory patients with symptomatic bone metastases. The reduction in pain was correlated with reductions in functional interference. Clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy should provide data that allow an evaluation of various domains of chronic pain.
Key words: Bone metastases, pain evaluation, palliative radiotherapy, quality assurance, quality of life, treatment outcomes
To access this article, please choose from the options below
PII: S0936-6555(06)00174-9
doi:10.1016/j.clon.2006.05.003
© 2006 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
