Comparison of pain-relieving effects by number of irradiations, through propensity score matching and the international consensus endpoint.

IF 1.2 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy Pub Date : 2023-08-28 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5603/RPOR.a2023.0054
Yuki Aoki, Michihiro Nakayama, Kaori Nakajima, Masaaki Yamashina, Atsutaka Okizaki
{"title":"Comparison of pain-relieving effects by number of irradiations, through propensity score matching and the international consensus endpoint.","authors":"Yuki Aoki,&nbsp;Michihiro Nakayama,&nbsp;Kaori Nakajima,&nbsp;Masaaki Yamashina,&nbsp;Atsutaka Okizaki","doi":"10.5603/RPOR.a2023.0054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases utilizes various dose fractionation schedules. The pain-relieving effects of a single fraction (SF) and multiple fractions (MF) are largely debated due to the difficulty in matching patients' backgrounds and in assessing the effectiveness of pain relief. This study aimed to compare the pain-relieving effects of SF and MF palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases using propensity score matching and the international consensus endpoint (ICE).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Our study included 195 patients irradiated for bone metastasis. The primary endpoint was the pain-relieving effects used by ICE. In addition, the evaluation was performed by using responder (complete response/partial response) and non-responder (pain progression/indeterminate response) categorization. The secondary endpoints were the discharge or transfer rate at one month after irradiation and postirradiation pathological fracture rate. Propensity score matching was used to adjust patient's characteristics and reduce selection bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After adapting propensity score matching, the total number of patients was 74. There was no significant difference in the pain-relieving effects between SF and MF (p = 0.184). There were no significant differences in them between SF and MF when using responder and non-responder categorization (p = 0.163). Furthermore, there were no differences in the discharge or transfer rates (p = 0.693) and pathological fracture rates (p = 1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The combination of propensity score matching and ICE revealed no significant difference in the pain-relieving effects between SF and MF for bone metastases, thus, SF has no significant disadvantage compared to MF in pain-relieving effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":47283,"journal":{"name":"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy","volume":"28 4","pages":"506-513"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b4/11/rpor-28-4-506.PMC10547426.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/RPOR.a2023.0054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases utilizes various dose fractionation schedules. The pain-relieving effects of a single fraction (SF) and multiple fractions (MF) are largely debated due to the difficulty in matching patients' backgrounds and in assessing the effectiveness of pain relief. This study aimed to compare the pain-relieving effects of SF and MF palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases using propensity score matching and the international consensus endpoint (ICE).

Materials and methods: Our study included 195 patients irradiated for bone metastasis. The primary endpoint was the pain-relieving effects used by ICE. In addition, the evaluation was performed by using responder (complete response/partial response) and non-responder (pain progression/indeterminate response) categorization. The secondary endpoints were the discharge or transfer rate at one month after irradiation and postirradiation pathological fracture rate. Propensity score matching was used to adjust patient's characteristics and reduce selection bias.

Results: After adapting propensity score matching, the total number of patients was 74. There was no significant difference in the pain-relieving effects between SF and MF (p = 0.184). There were no significant differences in them between SF and MF when using responder and non-responder categorization (p = 0.163). Furthermore, there were no differences in the discharge or transfer rates (p = 0.693) and pathological fracture rates (p = 1.00).

Conclusions: The combination of propensity score matching and ICE revealed no significant difference in the pain-relieving effects between SF and MF for bone metastases, thus, SF has no significant disadvantage compared to MF in pain-relieving effects.

Abstract Image

通过倾向评分匹配和国际共识终点,通过照射次数比较止痛效果。
背景:骨转移的姑息性放射治疗采用不同的剂量分割方案。由于难以匹配患者的背景和评估疼痛缓解的有效性,单组分(SF)和多组分(MF)的疼痛缓解效果在很大程度上存在争议。本研究旨在使用倾向评分匹配和国际共识终点(ICE)比较SF和MF姑息性放疗治疗骨转移瘤的止痛效果。材料和方法:我们的研究包括195名接受骨转移放射治疗的患者。主要终点是ICE使用的止痛效果。此外,通过使用应答者(完全应答/部分应答)和非应答者(疼痛进展/不确定应答)分类进行评估。次要终点是放疗后一个月的出院率或转移率以及放疗后病理性骨折率。倾向性评分匹配用于调整患者的特征并减少选择偏差。结果:采用倾向评分匹配后,患者总数为74人。SF和MF的止痛效果无显著差异(p=0.184)。使用应答者和非应答者分类时,SF和MF之间的止痛效果没有显著差异(p=0.163)。此外,出院率或转移率(p=0.693)和病理性骨折率(p=1.00)没有差异。结论:倾向评分匹配和ICE相结合显示,SF和MF对骨转移的止痛效果没有显著差异,因此,SF在止痛效果上与MF相比没有显著劣势。
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
115
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy is an interdisciplinary bimonthly journal, publishing original contributions in clinical oncology and radiotherapy, as well as in radiotherapy physics, techniques and radiotherapy equipment. Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy is a journal of the Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, the Czech Society of Radiation Oncology, the Hungarian Society for Radiation Oncology, the Slovenian Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, the Polish Study Group of Head and Neck Cancer, the Guild of Bulgarian Radiotherapists and the Greater Poland Cancer Centre, affiliated with the Spanish Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology, the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and the Portuguese Society of Radiotherapy - Oncology.
×
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