4.7 Article

A modified Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and the Vaizey Incontinence questionnaire are more sensitive measures of acute gastrointestinal toxicity during pelvic radiotherapy than RTOG grading

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.10.007

关键词

pelvic radiotherapy; acute gastrointestinal toxicity; Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire; Vaizey Incontinence; questionnaire; RTOG grading

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Simple scales with greater sensitivity than Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading to detect acute gastrointestinal toxicity during pelvic radiotherapy, could be clinically useful. Methods and Materials: Do questionnaires used in benign gastrointestinal diseases detect toxicity in patients undergoing radiotherapy? The patient-completed Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBDQ) and Vaizey Incontinence questionnaires were compared prospectively at baseline and at Week 5 to physician-completed RTOG grading. Results: A total of 107 patients, median age 63 years, were recruited. After 5 weeks of treatment, patients with gynecologic and gastrointestinal cancer were more symptomatic than urologic patients (p = 0.012; p = 0.014). Overall, 94% had altered bowel habits, 80% loose stool, 74% frequency, 65% difficult gas, 60% pain, > 48% distress, 44% tenesmus, > 40% restrictions in daily activity, 39% urgency, 37% fecal incontinence, and 40% required antidiarrheal medication. The median RTOG score was 1 (range, 0-2), median IBDQ score 204.5 (range, 74-224), and median Vaizey score 5 (range, 0-20). Chemotherapy preceding radiotherapy increased fecal incontinence (p = 0.002). RTOG scores stabilized after 3 weeks, IBDQ scores peaked at Week 4, and Vaizey scores worsened throughout treatment. IBDQ and Vaizey scores distinguished between groups with different RTOG scores. Conclusion: The IBDQ and Vaizey questionnaires are reliable and sensitive, offering greater insight into the severity and range of symptoms compared with RTOG grading. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据