The neurocognitive function change criteria after whole-brain radiation therapy for brain metastasis, in reference to health-related quality of life changes: a prospective observation study

BMC Cancer

Satoshi Tanabe¹  Atsushi Ohta¹  Hirotake Saito¹  Eisuke Abe²  Kensuke Tanaka²  Tomoya Oshikane²  Toshimichi Nakano²  Hidefumi Aoyama²  Katsuya Maruyama²  Motoki Kaidu² 

[1] Department of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental hospital;Department of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences;

关键词: Brain metastasis;    Health-related quality of life;    Neurocognitive function;    Whole brain radiation therapy;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12885-020-6559-3

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background We sought to construct the optimal neurocognitive function (NCF) change criteria sensitive to health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in patients who have undergone whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) for brain metastasis. Methods We categorized the patients by the changes of NCF into groups of improvement versus deterioration if at least one domain showed changes that exceeded the cut-off while other domains remained stable. The remaining patients were categorized as stable, and the patients who showed both significant improvement and deterioration were categorized as ‘both.’ We examined the clinical meaning of NCF changes using the cut-off values 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 SD based on the percentage of patients whose HR-QOL changes were ≥ 10 points. Results Baseline, 4-month and 8-month data were available in 78, 41 (compliance; 85%), and 29 (81%) patients, respectively. At 4 months, improvement/stable/deterioration/both was seen in 15%/12%/41%/32% of the patients when 1.0 SD was used; 19%/22%/37%/22% with 1.5 SD, and 17%/37%/37%/9% with 2.0 SD. The HR-QOL scores on the QLQ-C30 functional scale were significantly worse in the deterioration group versus the others with 1.0 SD (p = 0.013) and 1.5 SD (p = 0.015). With 1.5 SD, the HR-QOL scores on the QLQ-BN20 was significantly better in the improvement group versus the others (p = 0.033). However, when ‘both’ was included in ‘improvement’ or ‘deterioration,’ no significant difference in HR-QOL was detected. Conclusions The NCF cut-off of 1.5 SD and the exclusion of ‘both’ patients from the ‘deterioration’ and ‘improvement’ groups best reflects HR-QOL changes.

【 授权许可】

Unknown