Measuring the benefit and toxicity of palliative radiotherapy.

The Canadian journal of oncology Pub Date : 1996-02-01
W Shelley
{"title":"Measuring the benefit and toxicity of palliative radiotherapy.","authors":"W Shelley","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Historically, the goal of treatment in most cancer studies has been to improve survival, accepting variable levels of toxicity if survival can be improved. However, with palliative treatment, the goal is seldom to prolong survival but rather to alleviate symptoms and maintain quality of life and functional level while minimizing toxicity and patient inconvenience for those whose life expectancy is often short. Outcome measures for studies comparing palliative treatments are therefore often different and less objective than the more easily measured survival endpoint of curative studies. There are usually multiple outcomes of interest, many of them ideally requiring assessment by the patients themselves, repeatedly, over time. This can cause methodologic, statistical, and administrative difficulties which must be recognized and addressed when planning and conducting such studies. The following paper reviews some of these difficulties that challenge us when we attempt to accurately measure and compare the benefit and toxicity of palliative treatment. Despite these difficulties, the need for such studies is great, given their relative rarity in the published literature thus far and the magnitude of the clinical problem of palliative care.</p>","PeriodicalId":79379,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian journal of oncology","volume":"6 Suppl 1 ","pages":"86-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian journal of oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historically, the goal of treatment in most cancer studies has been to improve survival, accepting variable levels of toxicity if survival can be improved. However, with palliative treatment, the goal is seldom to prolong survival but rather to alleviate symptoms and maintain quality of life and functional level while minimizing toxicity and patient inconvenience for those whose life expectancy is often short. Outcome measures for studies comparing palliative treatments are therefore often different and less objective than the more easily measured survival endpoint of curative studies. There are usually multiple outcomes of interest, many of them ideally requiring assessment by the patients themselves, repeatedly, over time. This can cause methodologic, statistical, and administrative difficulties which must be recognized and addressed when planning and conducting such studies. The following paper reviews some of these difficulties that challenge us when we attempt to accurately measure and compare the benefit and toxicity of palliative treatment. Despite these difficulties, the need for such studies is great, given their relative rarity in the published literature thus far and the magnitude of the clinical problem of palliative care.

衡量姑息性放射治疗的益处和毒性。
从历史上看,大多数癌症研究的治疗目标都是提高生存率,如果可以提高生存率,可以接受不同程度的毒性。然而,姑息治疗的目标很少是延长生存期,而是减轻症状,维持生活质量和功能水平,同时尽量减少对预期寿命往往较短的患者的毒性和不便。因此,比较姑息治疗的研究的结果衡量标准往往与更容易衡量的治愈性研究的生存终点不同,也不那么客观。通常会有多种感兴趣的结果,其中许多理想情况下需要患者自己反复评估。这可能造成方法、统计和管理方面的困难,在规划和开展此类研究时必须认识到这些困难并加以解决。下面的文章回顾了一些挑战我们的困难,当我们试图准确地衡量和比较姑息治疗的益处和毒性。尽管存在这些困难,鉴于迄今为止在已发表的文献中相对罕见以及姑息治疗临床问题的严重性,对此类研究的需求很大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信