English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

BACKGROUND With the development of personalized medicine, it is necessary to take into consideration PROs, including quality of life (QOL) to adjust the treatment and follow up. Trends of QOL outcomes are of special interest for neuro oncologic patients in the setting of chemo-radiotherapy due to the high incidence of pseudo progression (worse MRI with no tumor progression). There are several QAM in the field of neuro oncology. We used the quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-30) for brain cancer with the QLQ-BN20 supplement, and Functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) with the FACT-Br supplement (version 4). We looked at the level of agreement between the two assessment tools for QAM for Israeli patients with different brain tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty patients were recruited between September 2017 to May 2018 at Sheba Medical Center after local IRB approval. Patients fulfilled the two types of questionnaires at 4 time points: before radiotherapy, with radiotherapy completion, at three months follow up and before another intervention. The difference between the two metrics was measured by t-test and performed by Bland-Altman plot. The association between QAM and MRI after radiotherapy and doctor assessment was measured by Linear regression. RESULTS Forty patients completed 162 questionnaires overall (QLQ-30 and FACIT): 8 patients completed questionnaires at all 4 time points, 7 patients completed questionnaires - 3 times, 6 patients- twice, and 19 patients- once. Three patients didn’t answer FACIT questionnaires and 3 other patients didn’t answer QLQ questionnaires. Patients population included 40% (16/40) with astrocytoma [25% (4/16), 31.2% (5/16), 43.8% (7/16) of them with WHO Grade 2,3,4 respectively], 25% (10/40) with meningioma [60% (6/10), 20% (2/10), and 20% (2/10) of them with WHO Grade 1,2 and 3 respectively], 20% (8/40) with brain metastasis, and other tumors (6/40) consisted 15% of the patient population. We found a significant difference between QAM means of agreement of the two metrics used (p&lt;0.001). There was a significant correlation between QAM and MRI after radiotherapy (p=0.013; R2=0.369 and p=0.025; R2=0.292 for QLQ and FACIT questionnaire, respectively). There was no significant correlation between physician examination and QAM metrics (p=0.880; R2=0.002 and p=0.724; R2=0.009 for QLQ and FACIT questionnaires respectively). CONCLUSION Patients’ evaluation success depends on the appropriate assessment metrics. QLQ questionnaires were a more appropriate tool in our patient population confirmed by MRI assessment compared to physicians’ evaluation. Our study shows a significant difference between two well validated tools. Further research is needed to establish the source of this difference and adjust QAM for neuro oncologic patients accordingly.

P08.02 Israeli experience with Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in the field of neuro oncology - Quality of Life Assessment Metrics (QAM)