Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Ability of Existing Questionnaires to Measure Symptom Change After Paracentesis for Symptomatic Ascites

  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Symptomatic malignant ascites is a problem for patients with advanced intra-abdominal malignancy. Although the goal of paracentesis, the most common therapeutic intervention, is symptom palliation, the best method of assessing symptom improvement is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of existing symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires to detect change in symptoms after paracentesis.

Methods

Patients with symptomatic ascites completed four questionnaires before and 24 hours after paracentesis. These tests were Edmonton Symptom Assessment System–Ascites Modification (ESAS:AM), Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale–Short Form, European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), and the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire, 26-item pancreatic cancer module (QLQ-PAN26). Sensitivity, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the questionnaires were evaluated.

Results

Sixty-one patients completed the baseline and 44 the follow-up questionnaire. Most patients had ovarian (41%) or gastrointestinal cancer (25%); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 2 (26%) and 3 (49%). Patients reported major symptoms at baseline; symptom scores were highest for the clinically recognized symptoms of ascites. Most patients (78%) reported that their symptoms improved after paracentesis. All questionnaires showed strong sensitivity, validity, and reliability. Subscales that included the most distressing symptoms were most responsive; great improvement was seen in abdominal bloating (42% to 54%), anorexia (20% to 37%), dyspnea (33% to 43%), insomnia (29% to 31%), fatigue (14% to 17%), and mobility (25%). The amount of fluid removed (median, 3.5 L; range, .3% to 9.7 L) did not correlate with symptom improvement (r = .29, P = −.10).

Conclusions

Paracentesis provides symptom relief that can be measured by existing questionnaires. For future clinical trials of symptomatic ascites, the QLQ-C30 and the ESAS:AM together, or the QLQ-C30 with the addition of the QLQ-PAN26 ascites and abdominal pain subscales could be used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1.
FIG. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Easson AM, Lee KF, Brasel K, Krouse RS. Clinical research for surgeons in palliative care: challenges and opportunities. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:141–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002;11:193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Parsons SL, Lang MW, Steele RJC. Malignant ascites: a 2-year review from a teaching hospital. Eur J Surg Oncol 1996;22:237–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mackey JR, Venner PM. Malignant ascites: demographics, therapeutic efficacy and predictors of survival. Can J Oncol 1996;6:474–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gotlieb WH, Feldman B, Feldman-Moran O, et al. Intraperitoneal pressures and clinical parameters of total paracentesis for palliation of symptomatic ascites in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1998;71:381–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hager ED, Dziambor H, Hohmann D, Muhe N, Strama H. Intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion chemotherapy of patients with chemotherapy-resistant peritoneal disseminated ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2001;11(Suppl 1):57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirte HW, Miller D, Tonkin K, et al. A randomized trial of paracentesis plus intraperitoneal tumor necrosis factor-alpha versus paracentesis alone in patients with symptomatic ascites from recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1997;64:80–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sartori S, Nielsen I, Tassinari D, Trevisani L, Abbasciano V, Malacarne P. Evaluation of a standardized protocol of intracavitary recombinant interferon alpha-2b in the palliative treatment of malignant peritoneal effusions. A prospective pilot study. Oncology 2001;61:192–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ott MG, Mannel DN, Gallati H, Goerig M, Raeth U. Peripheral natural killer cell activity and intraperitoneal soluble p55 tumor necrosis factor receptor in patients with malignant ascites: two possible indicators for response to intraperitoneal combined tumor necrosis factor alpha and interferon gamma treatment. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1996;42:31–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lissoni P, Mandala M, Curigliano G, et al. Progress report on the palliative therapy of 100 patients with neoplastic effusions by intracavitary low-dose interleukin-2. Oncology 2001;60:308–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mackey JR, Wood L, Nabholtz J, Jensen J, Venner P. A phase II trial of triamcinolone hexacetanide for symptomatic recurrent malignant ascites. J Pain Symptom Manage 2000;19:193–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McNamara P. Paracentesis—an effective method of symptom control in the palliative care setting? Palliat Med 2000;14:62–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Edmonton Palliative Care Program. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. 2002 http//www.palliative.org/PC/ClinicalInfo/AssessmentTools/esas.pdf

  14. Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M. Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Cancer 2000;88:2164–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Philip J, Smith WB, Craft P, Likiss N. Concurrent validity of the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and the Brief Pain Inventory. Support Care Cancer 1998;6:539–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M, Kasimis BS, Thaler HT. The memorial symptom assessment scale short form (MSAS-SF). Cancer 2000;89:1162–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Portenoy RK, Thaler HT, Kornblith AB, et al. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress. Eur J Cancer 1994;30A:1326–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:365–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bjordal K, de Graeff A, Fayers PM, et al. A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. EORTC Quality of Life Group. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:1796–807

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J, Warr D, Kaizer L, Latreille J. Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Qual Life Res 1994;3:353–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fitzsimmons D, Johnson CD, George S, et al. Development of a disease specific quality of life (QoL) questionnaire module to supplement the EORTC core cancer QoL questionnaire, the QLQ-C30 in patients with pancreatic cancer. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:939–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pater J, Osoba D, Zee B, et al. Effects of altering the time of administration and the time frame of quality of life assessments in clinical trials: an example using the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a large anti-emetic trial. Qual Life Res 1998;7:273–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, MacMillan K. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 1991;7:6–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. 3rd ed. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001

  25. O’Connor R. Measuring Quality of Life in Health. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  26. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:139–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kyriaki M, Eleni T, Efi P, Ourania K, Vassilios S, Lambros V. The EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) in terminally ill cancer patients under palliative care: validity and reliability in a Hellenic sample. Int J Cancer 2001;94:135–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Feinstein AR. The theory and evaluation of sensibility. In: Clinimetrics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987:141–65

  29. Hjermstad MJ, Fossa SD, Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Test/retest study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:1249–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Stromgren AS, Groenvold M, Pedersen L, Olsen AK, Sjogren P. Symptomatology of cancer patients in palliative care: content validation of self-assessment questionnaires against medical records. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:788–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:81–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  33. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson SA. Measuring health in injured workers: a cross-sectional comparison of five generic health status instruments in workers with musculoskeletal injuries. Am J Ind Med 1996;29:618–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:239–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Clinical Epidemiology Program and the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Dr. Alice Newman, who performed the outpatient paracenteses, and Fariba Sam, the research assistant who administered the questionnaires. Grant funding was provided by the Dean’s Fund New Staff Award, University of Toronto, and the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital and Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2M9

    Alexandra M. Easson MSc, MD, FRCSC, FACS

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2M9

    Andrea Bezjak MSc, MD

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Calgary, Foothills Medical Centre, 4th Floor North Tower, 1441-29 Street NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1C5

    Susan Ross PhD

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2M9

    Jim G. Wright MD, MPH

Authors
  1. Alexandra M. Easson MSc, MD, FRCSC, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Bezjak MSc, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan Ross PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jim G. Wright MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra M. Easson MSc, MD, FRCSC, FACS.

Additional information

Presented in part at the ASCO Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida, April 2005.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Easson, A.M., Bezjak, A., Ross, S. et al. The Ability of Existing Questionnaires to Measure Symptom Change After Paracentesis for Symptomatic Ascites. Ann Surg Oncol 14, 2348–2357 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9370-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9370-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation