4.5 Article

Evaluating health-related quality of life and symptom burden in brain tumour patients: instruments for use in experimental trials and clinical practice

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN NEUROLOGY
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 745-753

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e328315ef7d

关键词

brain metastases; cognition; glioma; health status; quality of life; symptoms

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, Maryland, USA) [5U10CA011488-38]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review The evaluation of new treatments in brain cancer should address outcomes such as functional status, symptoms, cognition and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), yet these are infrequently evaluated. This review focuses on instruments for measuring HRQOL in brain tumour patients and the recent developments in the field. Recent findings HRQOL is now well accepted as a trial endpoint by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Efforts to standardize HRQOL use in clinical trials are ongoing. Existing disease-specific instruments for brain tumour patients (e.g. EORTC BN-20, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain) appear to meet US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements sufficiently. The EORTC BN-20 has recently completed the final validation process. The psychometric properties of single-item linear analogue scale assessments for patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas were investigated. Nevertheless, only a few brain tumour trial results published over the last year reported on patients' HRQOL data or symptoms. The prognostic significance of HRQOL is debated as to whether it may have additional value over other well known prognostic factors. Summary With an increase in treatment options for brain tumours and also the risk of long-term neurotoxicity, more detailed reporting of patients' HRQOL and symptoms is essential. The use of HRQOL evaluations in brain tumour trials should be strongly encouraged by the clinical and academic community.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据