Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2013
The characteristics of physical activity and gait in patients receiving radiotherapy in cancer induced bone pain.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sande Tonje A, Scott Angela C, Laird Barry J A, Wan Hong I, Fleetwood-Walker Susan M, Kaasa Stein, Klepstad Pål, Mitchell Rory, Murray Gordon D, Colvin Lesley A, Fallon Marie T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An objective measure of pain relief may add important information to patients' self assessment, particularly after a treatment. The study aims were to determine whether measures of physical activity and/or gait can be used in characterizing cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) and whether these biomarkers are sensitive to treatment response, in patients receiving radiotherapy (XRT) for CIBP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were assessed before (baseline) and 6-8weeks after XRT (follow up). The following assessments were done: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), activPAL™ activity meter, and GAITRite® electronic walkway (measure of gait). Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney and Pearson statistical analyses were done.
RESULTS: Sixty patients were assessed at baseline; median worst pain was 7 and walking interference was 5. At follow up 42 patients were assessed. BPI worst pain, average pain, walking interference and total functional interference all improved (p<0.001). An improvement in functional interference correlated with aspects of physical activity (daily hours standing r=0.469, p=0.002) and gait (cadence r=0.341, p=0.03). The activPAL and GAITRite parameters did not change following XRT (p>0.05). In responder analyses there were no differences in activPAL and GAITRite parameters (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity and gait allow a characterization of the functional aspects of CIBP, but not in the evaluation of XRT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were assessed before (baseline) and 6-8weeks after XRT (follow up). The following assessments were done: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), activPAL™ activity meter, and GAITRite® electronic walkway (measure of gait). Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney and Pearson statistical analyses were done.
RESULTS: Sixty patients were assessed at baseline; median worst pain was 7 and walking interference was 5. At follow up 42 patients were assessed. BPI worst pain, average pain, walking interference and total functional interference all improved (p<0.001). An improvement in functional interference correlated with aspects of physical activity (daily hours standing r=0.469, p=0.002) and gait (cadence r=0.341, p=0.03). The activPAL and GAITRite parameters did not change following XRT (p>0.05). In responder analyses there were no differences in activPAL and GAITRite parameters (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity and gait allow a characterization of the functional aspects of CIBP, but not in the evaluation of XRT.