| 2. |
- Coomans, Marijke B., et al.
(author)
-
Measuring change in health-related quality of life: the impact of different analytical methods on the interpretation of treatment effects in glioma patients
- 2020
-
In: Neuro-Oncology Practice. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 2054-2577 .- 2054-2585. ; 7:6, s. 668-675
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background. Different analytical methods may lead to different conclusions about the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine 3 different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL and to study whether these methods result in different conclusions. Methods. HRQoL data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined (CODAGLIO project). Change in HRQoL scores, measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and BN20 questionnaires, was analyzed in 3 ways: (1) at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms, (2) at the patient level per scale/item, calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved, or remained stable per scale/item, and (3) at the individual patient level, combining all scales/items. Results. Baseline and first follow-up HRQoL data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level, only the item "hair loss" showed a significant and clinically relevant change (ie, >= 10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items were statistically significant only (all P <.001; range in change score, 0.1-6.2). Although a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range, 27%-84%) on the patient level per scale/item, many patients deteriorated (range, 6%-43%) or improved (range, 8%-32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level, the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, whereas only 1% remained stable on all scales. Conclusions. Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct conclusions of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for informing clinical decision making.
|
|
| 3. |
- Pace, Andrea, et al.
(author)
-
Determining medical decision-making capacity in brain tumor patients : why and how?
- 2020
-
In: Neuro-Oncology Practice. - : Oxford University Press. - 2054-2577 .- 2054-2585. ; 7:6, s. 599-612
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Brain tumor patients are at high risk of impaired medical decision-making capacity (MDC), which can be ethically challenging because it limits their ability to give informed consent to medical treatments or participation in research. The European Association of Neuro-Oncology Palliative Care Multidisciplinary Task Force performed a systematic review to identify relevant evidence with respect to MDC that could be used to give recommendations on how to cope with reduced MDC in brain tumor patients.Methods: A literature search in several electronic databases was conducted up to September 2019, including studies with brain tumor and other neurological patients. Information related to the following topics was extracted: tools to measure MDC, consent to treatment or research, predictive patient- and treatment-related factors, surrogate decision making, and interventions to improve MDC.Results: A total of 138 articles were deemed eligible. Several structured capacity-assessment instruments are available to aid clinical decision making. These instruments revealed a high incidence of impaired MDC both in brain tumors and other neurological diseases for treatment- and research-related decisions. Incapacity appeared to be mostly determined by the level of cognitive impairment. Surrogate decision making should be considered in case a patient lacks capacity, ensuring that the patient's "best interests" and wishes are guaranteed. Several methods are available that may help to enhance patients' consent capacity.Conclusions: Clinical recommendations on how to detect and manage reduced MDC in brain tumor patients were formulated, reflecting among others the timing of MDC assessments, methods to enhance patients' consent capacity, and alternative procedures, including surrogate consent.
|
|
