Clin Orthop Relat Res (2017) 475:498–507
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-5118-3
Clinical Orthopaedics
and Related Research®
A Publication of The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®
CLINICAL RESEARCH
What Factors are Associated With Quality Of Life, Pain
Interference, Anxiety, and Depression in Patients With Metastatic
Bone Disease?
Q. M. J. van der Vliet BSc, N. R. Paulino Pereira MD , S. J. Janssen MD,
F. J. Hornicek MD, MS, PhD, M. L. Ferrone MD, J. A. M. Bramer MD, PhD,
C. N. van Dijk MD, PhD, J. H. Schwab MD, MS
Received: 22 June 2016 / Accepted: 4 October 2016 / Published online: 17 October 2016
Ó The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons1 2016
Abstract
Background It would be helpful for the decision-making
process of patients with metastatic bone disease to understand which patients are at risk for worse quality of life
(QOL), pain, anxiety, and depression. Normative data, and
where these stand compared with general population
scores, can be useful to compare and interpret results of
similar patients or patient groups, but to our knowledge,
there are no such robust data.
One of the authors certifies that he (SJJ), or a member of his or her
immediate family, has or may receive payments or benefits, during
the study period, an amount of less than USD 10,000 from the Anna
Foundation (Oegstgeest, The Netherlands), an amount of less than
USD 10,000 from the De Drie Lichten Foundation (Hilversum, The
Netherlands), an amount of less than USD 10,000 from the KWF
Kankerbestrijding (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), and an amount of
less than USD 10,000 from the Michael van Vloten Foundation
(Rotterdam, The Netherlands).
All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical
Orthopaedics and Related Research1 editors and board members are
on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human
protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted
in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed
consent for participation in the study was obtained.
This study was performed at Massachusetts General Hospital &
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s11999-016-5118-3) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
Q. M. J. van der Vliet, N. R. Paulino Pereira, S. J. Janssen,
F. J. Hornicek, J. H. Schwab
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology
Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical
School, Boston, MA, USA
123
Questions/Purposes We wished (1) to assess what factors
are independently associated with QOL, pain interference,
anxiety, and depression in patients with metastatic bone
disease, and (2) to compare these outcomes with general
US population values.
Methods Between November 2011 and February 2015,
859 patients with metastatic bone disease presented to our
orthopaedic oncology clinic; 202 (24%) were included as
they completed the EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5DTM),
PROMIS1 Pain Interference, PROMIS1 Anxiety, and
PROMIS1 Depression questionnaires as part of a quality
improvement program. We did not record reasons for not
responding and found no differences between survey
respondents and nonrespondents in terms of age (63 versus
64 years; p = 0.916), gender (51% men versus 47% men;
p = 0.228), and race (91% white versus 88% white; p =
0.306), but survey responders were more likely to be
married or living with a partner (72%, versus 62%; p =
0.001). We assessed risk factors for QOL, pain interference, anxiety, and depression using multivariable linear
regression analysis. We used the one-sample signed rank
test to assess whether scores differed from US population
averages drawn from earlier large epidemiologic studies.
M. L. Ferrone
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology
Service, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical
School, Boston, MA, USA
J. A. M. Bramer, C. N. van Dijk
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center,
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
N. R. Paulino Pereira (&)
Massachusetts General Hospital, Room 3.946, Yawkey Building,
55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA
e-mail: nunorui.pp@gmail.com
Volume 475, Number 2, February 2017
Results Younger age (b regression coefficient [b],\0.01;
95% CI, 0.00–0.01; p = 0.041), smoking (b, 0.12; 95%
CI, 0.22 to 0.01; p = 0.026), pathologic fracture (b,
0.10; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.02; p = 0.012), and being
unemployed (b, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.02; p =
0.017) were associated with worse QOL. Current smoking
status was associated with more pain interference (b, 6.0;
95% CI, 1.6–11; p = 0.008). Poor-prognosis cancers (b,
3.8; 95% CI, 0.37–7.2; p = 0.030), and pathologic fracture
(b, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.5–7.2; p = 0.001) were associated with
more anxiety. Being single (b, 5.9; 95% CI, 0.83–11; p =
0.023), and pathologic fracture (b, 4.4; 95% CI, 0.8–8.0;
p = 0.017) were associated with depression. QOL scores
(0.68 versus 0.85; p \ 0.001), pain interference scores (65
versus 50; p\0.001), and anxiety scores (53 versus 50; p =
0.011) were worse for patients with bone metastases
compared with general US population values, whereas
depression scores were comparable (48 versus 50; p =
0.171).
Conclusions Impending pathologic fractures should be
treated promptly to prevent deterioration in QOL, anxiety,
and depression. Our normative data can be used to compare
and interpret results of similar patients or patient groups.
Future studies could focus on specific cancers metastasizing to the bone, to further understand which patients are at
risk for worse patient-reported outcomes.
Level of evidence Level III, prognostic study.
Introduction
The main goal when treating patients with metastatic bone
disease is to preserve or even improve quality of life (QOL)
[7, 29]. Questionnaires that measure QOL can quantify
treatment effectiveness and guide clinical decision-making
[7, 18, 30]. Several studies identified risk factors for QOL
in patients with metastatic bone disease; [8, 25, 28, 29]
however, these often were measured after specific treatment(s), and therefore do not represent QOL for all patients
with metastatic bone disease.
It would be useful to more fully understand which
patients are at risk for worse QOL, pain, anxiety, and
depression, so that deterioration for these patients can be
anticipated and potentially overcome with medical treatment. In addition, it is helpful to have normative data for
patients with metastatic bone disease to be able to compare
and interpret results of similar patients or patient groups.
To our knowledge, there are no rigorous sources to date
that provide such information.
Therefore, we sought to identify factors independently
associated with QOL, pain interference, anxiety, and
Quality of Life in Metastatic Bone Disease
499
depression. Secondly, we compared these patient-reported outcome scores with general US population
scores.
Patients and Methods
Study Design, Setting, and Subjects
After approval by the institutional review board of Massachusetts General Hospital, we analyzed prospectively
gathered patient-reported outcome data of patients with
bone metastases from solid tumors, myeloma, or lymphoma, who presented to our clinic between November 1,
2011 and February 1, 2015. As part of a quality improvement program, patients completed the following
questionnaires before visiting the surgeon at our orthopaedic oncology service since November 2011: the
EuroQOL 5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5DTM), PatientReported Outcomes Measurement Information System
(PROMIS1) Pain Interference, PROMIS1 Anxiety, and
PROMIS1 Depression.
Through the information system (Research Patient Data
Registry) from Massachusetts General Hospital, we identified 16,769 unique patients who received the ICD-9 code
for ‘‘Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone and bone
marrow’’ between February 1990 and February 2015; 1714
of those patients were seen at our orthopaedic oncology
clinic, of whom 859 were seen during the period of the
quality improvement program (November 2011 to February 2015). Of the 859 potentially eligible patients, 202
(24%) completed the survey and 657 (76%) did not
(Fig. 1). We were unable to track reasons for nonparticipation, but we did analyze differences in baseline
characteristics between the surveyed and nonsurveyed
patients. There were no differences in age (63 versus 64
years; p = 0.916), sex (51% men versus 47% men; p =
0.228), and race (91% white versus 88% white; p = 0.306),
but survey responders were more likely to be married or
living with a partner (72% versus 62%; p = 0.001) (Appendix 1. Supplemental material is available with the
online version of CORR1). We therefore believe that our
results can be generalized to the overall population of
patients with bone metastasis presenting to an orthopaedic
oncology clinic.
Questionnaires were completed through the REDCap
(Research Electronic Data Capture) data capture tool on a
tablet computer [14]. We included the first completed
survey in the case patients had completed surveys multiple
times, as not to violate the statistical assumption of
independence.
123
500
van der Vliet et al.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research1
Fig. 1 This flow chart shows the selection procedure of the included cohort. The ICD-9 code 198.5 corresponds to ‘‘Secondary malignant
neoplasm of bone and bone marrow’’
Outcome Measures and Explanatory Variables
Our outcome measures were (1) QOL, as measured with
the EQ-5DTM questionnaire (completed by all patients), (2)
how pain interfered with physical function as measured
with the PROMIS1 Pain Interference questionnaire
(completed by 143; 71%), (3) anxiety as measured with the
PROMIS1 Anxiety questionnaire (completed by 138;
68%), and (4) depression as measured with the PROMIS1
Depression questionnaire (completed by 136; 67%). The
latter three questionnaires were not completed by all
123
patients as these were introduced to the quality improvement program at a later time (August 1, 2012). We
assessed baseline differences between patients who did not
complete a PROMIS1 questionnaire (n = 56), and those
who did (n = 146). There were no differences in median
age (62 versus 64 years; p = 0.972), sex (46% male versus
53% male; p = 0.432), marital status (73% married versus
72% married; p = 0.271), median Charlson Comorbidity
Index (6 versus 6; p = 0.806), pathologic fracture (27%
versus 29%; p = 0.862), or previous surgery (14% versus
8.9%; p = 0.304).
Volume 475, Number 2, February 2017
The EQ-5DTM-3L questionnaire covers five dimensions
(mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and
anxiety/depression), and each dimension is divided into
three levels (no problems, moderate problems, or extreme
problems). The EQ-5DTM describes 245 unique health
states [24]. Fryback et al. [10] obtained age-by-gender EQ5DTM norms for adults in the US; we compared the EQ5DTM scores to the value of 0.85, based on the age of our
study participants.
The PROMIS1 was established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop standardized item banks
to assess physical, mental, and social well-being in the
medical field. The PROMIS1 Pain Interference item bank
(six items) assesses the extent to which pain interferes with
functioning. The PROMIS1 Anxiety questionnaire (six
items) includes questions regarding fear, anxious misery,
hyperarousal, and somatic symptoms related to arousal.
The PROMIS1 Depression questionnaire (six items)
focuses on negative mood, decrease in positive affect,
information-processing deficits, negative views of self, and
negative social cognition. All PROMIS1 scores have a
general US population-based mean T-score of 50; these
scores are not adjusted by age or gender [5].
Two researchers (QvdV, SJJ) extracted the following
explanatory variables from medical records in a retrospective manner, as these were known or suggested to be
associated with patient-reported outcomes [8, 25, 28, 29]:
age, sex, race, employment status, marital status, smoking
status, comorbidity status, BMI in kg/m2, primary tumor
type, time between diagnosis of primary tumor and survey,
time between diagnosis of metastatic disease and survey,
location of the bone metastasis leading to the consultation
(spine, lower extremity, upper extremity, pelvis, multiple,
and other locations), current radiotherapy, current systemic
therapy, prior surgery for bone metastasis, pathologic
fracture (an impending pathologic fracture was not considered a fracture), presence of other bone metastases, and
presence of visceral or brain metastases.
We assessed the comorbidity status using a modified
Charlson Comorbidity Index; this is an index weighting 12
comorbidities known to be associated with 10-year survival
[6]. We used a modified Charlson Comorbidity Index calculated by a previously described algorithm based on ICD9 codes [23]. The presence of additional comorbidities was
based on the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index and
defined as the presence of conditions other than metastatic
bone disease, multiple myeloma, or lymphoma. We
extracted BMI closest to completion of the survey and
omitted values recorded longer than 90 days before the
survey. ‘‘Former smoker’’ was defined as stopped smoking
at least 1 year before the survey. Based on a study by
Katagiri et al. [17], we categorized primary tumors as those
with a relatively good prognosis (breast, kidney, prostate,
Quality of Life in Metastatic Bone Disease
501
thyroid, myeloma, and lymphoma), and those with a relatively poor prognosis (all other tumor types). Systemic
therapy was defined as any type of hormonal therapy,
chemotherapy, or immunotherapy for the primary cancer.
The fracture status, presence of other bone metastases, and
visceral metastases were derived from radiology reports.
An independent researcher (NRPP) crosschecked a
random 10% sample of the retrospectively collected data to
ensure a robust database; there were less than 5% inconsistencies overall, and there were no repeated
inconsistencies within one variable.
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were presented as medians with
interquartile ranges (IQR), and categorical variables as
frequencies with percentages. Data were analyzed using
nonparametric tests, as histograms suggested nonnormal
distribution of continuous variables.
We did an exploratory bivariate analysis to assess differences in outcome measures using the Mann-Whitney U
test for dichotomous explanatory variables, Kruskal-Wallis
test for categorical explanatory variables, and Spearman’s
rank correlation coefficient for continuous explanatory
variables. We used stepwise backward multivariable linear
regression analysis—retaining variables with a p value less
than 0.10—to assess if explanatory variables (as identified
by the bivariate analyses) were independently associated
with the outcome measures.
We used the one-sample signed rank test to assess whether
scores differed from general US population averages.
All statistical analyses were performed with STATA1
13.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA), and twotailed p values less than 0.05 were considered significant.
Patient Demographics
The study population consisted of 104 (51%) men and 98
(49%) women, with a median age of 63 years (range, 27–
89 years) (Table 1). Lung cancer was the most common
primary cancer (35; 17%), followed by breast cancer (33;
16%), and multiple myeloma (33; 16%). The most common location for a bone lesion was the spine (72; 36%),
and 57 (28%) patients presented with a pathologic fracture.
Twenty-one (10%) patients had undergone prior surgery
for their metastatic bone lesion(s), with a median of 132
days (IQR, 23–520 days; range, 2–1617 days) between the
surgery and survey completion. Seventy-nine (39%) were
being treated with systemic therapy, and nine (4%) were
receiving radiotherapy for their bone lesion(s) at the time
of completing the survey.
123
502
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research1
van der Vliet et al.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of 202 patients
Characteristic
Median
Interquartile range
Age (years)
63
54–72
Modified Charlson Comorbidity Index*
6.0
6.0–8.0
BMI (kg/m2)*
27
24–31
Time between diagnosis of primary tumor and survey (months)*
26
4.1–78
Time between diagnosis of metastatic disease and survey (months)*
7.4
0.4–34
Number
%
Men
104
51
White race*
174
91
Additional comorbidities*
94
47
79
118
40
60
Married/living with partner
144
72
Separated/divorced/widowed
35
18
Single
21
11
Employment status*
Employed
Unemployed
Marital status*
Smoking status*
Never smoked
79
41
Former smokerà
81
42
Current smoker
35
18
Lung
35
17
Breast
33
16
Multiple myeloma
33
16
Kidney
28
14
Prostate
13
6
60
30
Spine
72
36
Lower extremity
40
20
Upper extremity
31
15
Pelvis
27
13
Multiple
30
15
Other||
2
1
9
4
Primary tumor type
Other/unknown§
Location of presenting metastasis
Current radiotherapy
Current systemic therapy
79
39
Prior surgery for bone metastasis
21
10
Pathologic fracture
57
28
Multiple bone metastases
127
63
Lung/liver/adrenal/brain metastases
81
40
*Modified Charlson Comorbidity Index was available for 200 patients (99%), BMI was available for 198 patients (98%), race was available for
191 patients (95%), additional comorbidities were available for 200 patients (99%), employment status was available for 197 patients (98%),
marital status was available for 200 patients (99%), smoking status was available for 195 patients (97%), time between diagnosis of primary
tumor and survey was available for 193 patients (96%), and time between diagnosis of metastatic disease and survey was available for 196
patients (97%); based on any additional comorbidity in addition to the metastatic disease score following the Charlson Comorbidity Index; àquit
at least 1 year before survey; §thyroid (n = 8), lymphoma (n = 6), colorectal (n = 6), adenocarcinoma (n = 6), neuroendocrine (n = 5), esophageal
(n = 4), melanoma (n = 3), liver (n = 3), bladder (n = 2), endometrial (n = 2), ovarian (n = 1), and pancreatic (n = 1); ||rib (n =1), occipital condyle
(n = 1).
123
Volume 475, Number 2, February 2017
Quality of Life in Metastatic Bone Disease
503
Table 2. Multivariable linear regression analysis assessing factors independently associated with patient-reported outcomes
Explanatory variables per questionnaire
b regression coefficient (95% CI)
Standard error
p Value
\ 0.01 (0.00–0.01)
0.001
0.041}
EQ-5DTM index
Age (in years)
Smoking status*
Never smoked
Reference
Former smoker
0.05 ( 0.13 to 0.03)
0.04
0.252
Current smoker
0.12 ( 0.22 to
0.01)
0.05
0.026}
0.10 ( 0.18 to
0.02)
0.04
0.012}
Reference
0.09 ( 0.17 to
0.02)
0.04
0.017}
Pathologic fracture
No
Reference
Yes
Employment status*
Employed
Unemployed
PROMIS
1
Pain Interference
Smoking status*
Never smoked
Reference
Former smoker
3.1 ( 0.37 to 6.7)
1.72
0.080
Current smoker
6.0 (1.6–11)
2.25
0.008}
1.73
0.030}
PROMIS
1
Anxiety
Primary tumor typeà
Good prognosis
Reference
Poor prognosis
3.8 (0.37–7.2)
Pathologic fracture
No
Reference
Yes
6.3 (2.5–7.2)
1.90
0.001}
Married/living with partner
Separated/divorced/widowed
Reference
0.53 ( 4.0 to 5.0)
2.27
0.817
Single
5.9 (0.83–11)
2.54
0.023}
1.82
0.017}
PROMIS1 Depression
Marital status*
Pathologic fracture
No
Reference
Yes
4.4 (0.8–8.0)
Two-tailed p value less than 0.05; adjusted R squared values for the multivariate analyses were 0.0586 for the EQ-5DTM, 0.0407 for the
PROMIS1 Pain Interference, 0.0902 for the PROMIS1 Anxiety, and 0.0632 for the PROMIS1 Depression; *marital status was available for 200
patients (99%); quit at least one year before survey; àprimary tumor type with good prognosis includes breast, kidney, prostate, thyroid,
myeloma and lymphoma, and with poor prognosis includes all other tumor types; EQ-5DTM = EuroQol 5 Dimension Questionnaire; PROMIS1 =
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System.
}
Results
Factors Associated With More Pain Interference
Factors Associated With Worse QOL
Current smoking status was the only factor associated with
worse pain interference scores (b, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.6–11; p =
0.008) (Table 2).
After controlling for relevant confounding variables, we
found that younger age (b regression coefficient [b],
\ 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00–0.01; p = 0.041), current smoking
status (b, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.01; p = 0.026),
pathologic fracture (b, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.02; p
= 0.012), and being unemployed (b, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.17
to 0.02; p = 0.017) were independently associated with
worse QOL (Table 2).
Factors Associated With More Anxiety
After controlling for relevant confounding variables, we
found that a primary tumor type with poor prognosis (b,
3.8; 95% CI, 0.37–7.2; p = 0.030), and pathologic fracture
123
504
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research1
van der Vliet et al.
Table 3. Patient-reported outcomes for patients with bone metastases, and comparison with general population values
Questionnaire
Number (%)
Median (interquartile range)
EQ-5DTM index
202 (100)
0.68 (0.40–0.81) ‘
PROMIS1 Pain Interference
143 (71)
65 (56–70)
50
\ 0.001*
PROMIS1 Anxiety
138 (68)
53 (39–61)
50
0.011*
136 (67)
48 (38–57)
50
0.171
PROMIS
1
Depression
*Significant; EQ-5D
TM
= EuroQol 5 Dimension Questionnaire; PROMIS
(b, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.5–7.2; p = 0.001) were independently
associated with worse anxiety scores (Table 2).
Factors Associated With Depression
After controlling for relevant confounding variables, we
found that pathologic fracture (b, 4.4; 95% CI, 0.8–8.0; p =
0.017), and being single (b, 5.9; 95% CI, 0.8–11; p =
0.023) were independently associated with worse depression scores (Table 2).
Comparison With General US Population Norms
Patients with metastatic bone disease had worse QOL
scores than the US population norm of 0.85 (0.68; range,
0.04 to 1; p\0.001), worse PROMIS1 Pain Interference
scores than the US population norm of 50 (T-score, 65;
range, 41–76; p \ 0.001), and worse PROMIS1 Anxiety
scores than the US population norm of 50 (T-score, 53;
range, 39–79; p = 0.011). Patients with metastatic bone
disease had PROMIS1 Depression scores comparable to
the US population norm of 50 (T-score, 48; range, 38–73;
p = 0.171) (Table 3).
Discussion
QOL plays a crucial role in the treatment of metastatic
bone disease [7, 29], and questionnaires that measure QOL
can quantify treatment effectiveness and guide clinical
decision-making [7, 18, 30]. Previous studies identified risk
factors for QOL after medical treatments [8, 25, 28, 29],
although it would be useful for clinical decision-making to
understand which patients are more prone to have worse
QOL regardless of any (prior) treatment. Furthermore, it
would be helpful to have normative data for these patients
to be able to compare and interpret results of similar
patients or patient groups. We found that having a pathologic fracture was independently associated with worse
QOL, increased anxiety, and more depression. In addition,
123
1
General population value
0.85
p Value
\ 0.001*
= Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System.
younger age, current smoking status, and being unemployed were independently associated with worse QOL.
Current smoking status was independently associated with
more pain interference. A primary tumor type with poor
prognosis was associated with more anxiety, and being
single was associated with more depression. Patients with
metastatic bone disease reported worse QOL, more pain
interference, and more anxiety compared with general
population values; their depression scores were not different with the numbers available.
This study has limitations. First, selection bias might
have occurred, as we had patient-reported outcomes on
only 24% [202/859] of the eligible patients who presented
to our clinic. Nonresponders more often were single, and
being single was associated with worse depression scores;
if all 859 eligible patients had been included, this could
have worsened overall patient-reported outcome scores
(especially depression scores), giving larger differences
between our sample and US population norms. Second, 56
(28%) of the 202 patients did not complete a PROMIS1
questionnaire, resulting in reduced statistical power for
PROMIS1- related outcomes. However, we found no
baseline differences between the patients who did and did
not complete the PROMIS1 questionnaires. Third, questionnaires were completed at different stages of treatment.
This cross-sectional survey study represents the breadth of
patients with bone metastasis who present to an orthopaedic oncology clinic; some patients filled out the
questionnaires during their preoperative visit, whereas
others completed the survey after an extensive surgical
procedure. The normative data for patient-reported outcomes that we present are not reflections of the
effectiveness of certain medical treatments that we provide,
and should not be interpreted as such. Fourth, two
researchers collected several variables in a retrospective
manner (except for the patient-reported outcomes); these
variables might have information bias. Another researcher
verified a random 10% sample (21 patients) of the database
to detect inconsistencies in all retrospectively collected
data; less than 5% of the data were discrepant, and discrepancies were not consistent within one variable.
Therefore we considered this a minor limitation. Fifth, we
Volume 475, Number 2, February 2017
included predominantly white patients from an orthopaedic
clinic at a tertiary care hospital in an urban area, therefore
our results may not be generalizable to all patients with
metastatic bone disease or patients being treated in other
settings. Patients who present to our clinic often have an
acute or impending fracture or a painful bone lesion; this
might result in a sicker patient population compared with
patients who do not consult an orthopaedic surgeon [1].
Therefore, our results might show a slight underestimation
of QOL for patients with bone metastases. Sixth, we used
ICD-9 codes to identify eligible patients and to extract the
modified Charlson Comorbidity Index. Coding might have
been inaccurate, although we believe this is limited and not
of influence on our results. Seventh, outcome measures and
explanatory variables were not available for all patients.
However, missing data were relatively low (PROMIS1
Pain Interference missing in 29%; PROMIS1 Anxiety
missing in 32%; PROMIS1 Depression missing in 33%;
range of percentages of missing data for explanatory
variables 1% to 4%). Eighth, the Karnofsky Performance
Score was found to be associated with QOL in previous
studies [8, 28, 29]. Unfortunately, data on this score were
available only for a very small number of patients in our
cohort, therefore we could not assess the effect of the
performance score on patient-reported outcomes. Ninth,
one may advocate that it is inappropriate to include patients
with hematologic cancers in this study because these cancers (often) have a better prognosis, which might modify
the patients’ perception of the disease. We tried to account
for this by including the variable ‘‘primary tumor type’’,
where hematologic malignancies accounted for 32% (39/
121) of the ‘‘good prognosis’’ group. Finally, the normative
data on PROMIS1 scores we used are not adjusted by age
or gender [5]. As we observed in our data, QOL scores may
vary based on age: likely, this is also the case in the general
population [15, 16, 19]. This limitation might have resulted
in an unfair comparison with general population values for
PROMIS1 questionnaire outcomes. Future studies will
need to perform such adjustments, as it seems nearly certain that age and gender would influence patients’
PROMIS1 scores.
To our knowledge, our findings that patients who were
younger, patients who were smokers, patients who were not
employed, and patients with pathologic fractures all had
poorer QOL, are novel. However, other studies have
reported on other risk factors. Choi et al. [8] measured
QOL by giving the EQ-5DTM questionnaire to 922 patients
after surgery for metastatic spine disease; predictive factors
for postoperative QOL were the preoperative EQ-5DTM
score, the Frankel score, and the Karnofsky performance
status. Westhoff et al. [28] collected QOL for 956 patients
with breast, prostate, and lung cancers after irradiation for
painful bone metastases by giving the Rotterdam Symptom
Quality of Life in Metastatic Bone Disease
505
Checklist, and found that patients with lung cancer had
worse QOL scores than patients with prostate and breast
cancers. In a study by Wong et al. [29], 396 patients with
metastatic bone disease completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of
Life Questionnaire Bone Metastases module: a Karnofsky
Performance scale greater than 80 (compared with less than
80) and breast or prostate cancer (compared with other
cancer types) were associated with better QOL. Rustøen
et al. [25] obtained QOL information from 157 oncology
outpatients with pain from bone metastasis, using the
Multidimensional Quality of Life Scale-Cancer. Depression, social functioning, and physical functioning were the
factors associated with QOL.
Having a pathologic fracture was independently associated with worse QOL, more anxiety, and depression. We
believe that patients with a pathologic fracture have worse
QOL owing to increased pain and disability (as these are
components of the EQ-5DTM) [24], and more anxiety and
depression owing to overall deterioration in health and
accompanying death anxiety. This stresses that it is of
utmost importance to prevent pathologic fractures, and
could serve as a basis for a lower threshold for surgery
(such as intramedullary nailing) in patients with impending
fractures from metastatic bone lesions.
Patients who were unemployed reported worse QOL,
but it is unclear if poor QOL led to unemployment or vice
versa. Wong et al. [29] studied 396 patients with bone
metastases from various cultures and found that employment status was not associated with QOL. This mixture of
cultures might have led to a different contribution of
employment status, showing that the extrapolarity of our
results to other countries is limited. Current smoking status
was associated with worse QOL and more pain interference
in our study patients. Although the psychological and
physiologic reasons remain unclear, pain and tobacco
addiction are theorized to interact in a bidirectional manner
[22]; individuals with pain are more likely to be dependent
on tobacco, and tobacco addiction is a risk factor for
having chronic pain develop. Although the direction of
causality is unclear, this interaction gives a positive feedback loop between tobacco abuse and pain, leading to
worsening of both conditions [9].
Patients with relatively poor-prognosis tumor types
reported more anxiety compared with patients with goodprognosis primary tumor types; this might be attributable to
the awareness of a poorer prognosis and fear of death. We
broke down this variable further per cancer type and
ascertained that patients with lung cancer and adenocarcinoma reported more anxiety compared with patients with
breast cancer, multiple myeloma, renal cancer, prostate
cancer, or thyroid cancer (Table 4). We also stratified for
pathologic fracture, as this also was a risk factor; these
123
506
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research1
van der Vliet et al.
Table 4. PROMIS1 Anxiety t-scores with 95% CIs, stratified for most common primary tumor types, and pathologic fracture
Patient group
Poor-prognosis tumors*
Lung
carcinoma
n = 26
All patients (n = 54 (49–61)
138)
Good-prognosis tumors*
Adenocarcinoma Breast
carcinoma
n=5
n = 23
Multiple
myeloma
n = 22
Renal cell
carcinoma
n = 19
Prostate
carcinoma
n=9
Thyroid
carcinoma
n=5
All
patients
n = 138
57 (54–63)
53 (46–63)
51 (39–62)
51 (39–63)
49 (39–51)
49 (39–51)
53 (39–
61)
Pathologic
fracture
No (n = 100)
51 (39–57)
56 (52–30)
51 (39–61)
54 (39–63)
46 (39–57)
49 (43–53)
49 (39–51)
51 (39–
57)
Yes (n = 38)
61 (53–63)
74 (74–74)
57 (51–63)
50 (46–58)
66 (63–69)
39 (39–39)
–
58 (49–
63)
The most common primary tumor types are included (n[5); *based on study by Katagiri et al. [17], primary tumors were categorized as tumors
with a relatively good prognosis (breast, kidney, prostate, thyroid, myeloma, and lymphoma), and tumors with a relatively poor prognosis (all
other tumor types).
normative data can be used to compare and interpret results
of similar patients or patient groups. Furthermore, awareness of anxiety and referral for psychological counseling in
patients with poor-prognosis tumor types is recommended.
Studies show that in the general population older age is
associated with worse QOL scores [15, 16, 19], whereas in
our study population younger age was associated with
worse QOL. We speculate that younger patients may be
more traumatized when receiving a diagnosis of metastatic
disease (it comes more unexpectedly), have greater
responsibilities to their family and community, and have
more life goals compared with older patients [20, 27, 32].
Like in our study, previous studies showed an association
between being married and better QOL [3, 11, 29].
Goodwin et al. [13] suggested that married patients with
cancer may have a better QOL because they are diagnosed
at an earlier stage, they may show better response to
treatment, and because they benefit from the social support
and care-taking skills of the spouse.
To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing
QOL, pain interference, anxiety, and depression scores for
patients with bone metastases with general population
values. Previously, patients with any type of cancer were
found to have similar QOL compared with a general US
adult population sample [4]. In light of this, we questioned
why patients with bone metastases from our cohort
reported worse QOL. Patients with bone metastases might
have more pain, reduced mobility, impaired role functioning, and reduced physical performance [2]. Pain
interference scores were higher compared with US population values; this can be explained by the painful
conditions (pathologic fractures, painful bone lesions) that
are the most common reasons for presenting to an orthopaedic surgeon [1]. Furthermore, we believe that patients
123
had higher anxiety scores owing to fear of pain or to death
anxiety [26]. Death anxiety is common in patients with
advanced cancer and has been associated with generalized
anxiety [12, 21, 26]. Surprisingly, depression scores were
comparable to general population values. Previous studies
explained this phenomenon as emotional and spiritual
adaptation, and taking the cancer diagnosis in consideration
when evaluating health status [21, 31].
Physicians can use the factors we associated with poorer
scores for QOL, pain interference, anxiety, and depression to
anticipate which patients might need additional psychosocial
support during treatment for metastatic bone disease. Furthermore, our normative data can be used to compare and
interpret results of other patients or patient groups for future
studies. Our study results support that impending pathologic
fractures should be treated promptly (perhaps by intramedullary nailing) to prevent further deterioration in QOL,
anxiety, and depression. Every type of cancer that metastasizes to the bone has a different disease course, treatment, and
prognosis; therefore, it would merit further study to reproduce
our study in cancer-specific groups, to identify more accurate
factors accounting for variation in patient-reported outcomes.
References
1. Agarwal MG, Nayak P. Management of skeletal metastases: an
orthopaedic surgeon’s guide. Indian J Orthop. 2015;49:83–100.
2. Barton MB, Dawson R, Jacob S, Currow D, Stevens G, Morgan
G. Palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases: an evaluation of
outcome measures. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7:47–64.
3. Broeckel JA, Jacobsen PB, Balducci L, Horton J, Lyman GH.
Quality of life after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;62:141–150.
4. Brucker PS, Yost K, Cashy J, Webster K, Cella D. General
population and cancer patient norms for the Functional
Volume 475, Number 2, February 2017
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Eval Health
Prof. 2005;28:192–211.
Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S,
Amtmann D, Bode R, Buysse D, Choi S, Cook K, Devellis R,
DeWalt D, Fries JF, Gershon R, Hahn EA, Lai JS, Pilkonis P,
Revicki D, Rose M, Weinfurt K, Hays R; PROMIS Cooperative
Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of
adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin
Epidemiol. 2010;63:1179–1194.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new
method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal
studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis.
1987;40:373–383.
Cheng EY. Prospective quality of life research in bony metastatic
disease. Clin Orthopaed Relat Res. 2003;415(suppl)S289–297.
Choi D, Fox Z, Albert T, Arts M, Balabaud L, Bunger C,
Buchowski JM, Coppes MH, Depreitere B, Fehlings MG, Harrop
J, Kawahara N, Martin-Benlloch JA, Massicotte EM, Mazel C,
Oner FC, Peul W, Quraishi N, Tokuhashi Y, Tomita K, Verlaan
JJ, Wang M, Crockard HA. Prediction of quality of life and
survival after surgery for symptomatic spinal metastases: a
multicenter cohort study to determine suitability for surgical
treatment. Neurosurgery. 2015;77:698–708; discussion 708.
Ditre JW, Brandon TH, Zale EL, Meagher MM. Pain, nicotine,
and smoking: research findings and mechanistic considerations.
Psychol Bull. 2011;137:1065–1093.
Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, Hanmer J, Buechner J,
Cherepanov D, Herrington SA, Hays RD, Kaplan RM, Ganiats
TG, Feeny D, Kind P. US norms for six generic health-related
quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement
study. Med Care. 2007;45:1162–1170.
Ganz PA, Lee JJ, Siau J. Quality of life assessment: an independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancer. Cancer.
1991;67:3131–3135.
Gonen G, Kaymak SU, Cankurtaran ES, Karslioglu EH, Ozalp E,
Soygur H. The factors contributing to death anxiety in cancer
patients. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2012;30:347–358.
Goodwin JS, Hunt WC, Key CR, Samet JM. The effect of marital
status on stage, treatment, and survival of cancer patients. JAMA.
1987;258:3125–3130.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG.
Research electronic data capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven
methodology and workflow process for providing translational
research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381.
Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Using reference
data on quality of life: the importance of adjusting for age and
gender, exemplified by the EORTC QLQ-C30 (+3). Eur J
Cancer. 1998;34:1381–1389.
Holzner B, Kemmler G, Cella D, De Paoli C, Meraner V, Kopp
M, Greil R, Fleischhacker WW, Sperner-Unterweger B. Normative data for functional assessment of cancer therapy: general
scale and its use for the interpretation of quality of life scores in
cancer survivors. Acta Oncol. 2004;43:153–160.
Katagiri H, Takahashi M, Wakai K, Sugiura H, Kataoka T,
Nakanishi K. Prognostic factors and a scoring system for patients
with skeletal metastasis. J Bone Joint SurgBr. 2005;87:698–703.
Quality of Life in Metastatic Bone Disease
507
18. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in
cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA
Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:278–300.
19. Michelson H, Bolund C, Nilsson B, Brandberg Y. Health-related
quality of life measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30: reference
values from a large sample of Swedish population. Acta Oncol.
2000;39:477–484.
20. Mor V, Allen S, Malin M. The psychosocial impact of cancer on
older versus younger patients and their families. Cancer.
1994;74(7 suppl):2118–2127.
21. Parker PA, Baile WF, de Moor Cd, Cohen L. Psychosocial and
demographic predictors of quality of life in a large sample of
cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2003;12:183–193.
22. Parkerson HA, Zvolensky MJ, Asmundson GJ. Understanding the
relationship between smoking and pain. Expert Rev Neurother.
2013;13:1407–1414.
23. Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, Januel
JM, Sundararajan V. Updating and validating the Charlson
comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol.
2011;173:676–682.
24. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the
EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–343.
25. Rustøen T, Moum T, Padilla G, Paul S, Miaskowski C. Predictors
of quality of life in oncology outpatients with pain from bone
metastasis. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;30:234–242.
26. Tong E, Deckert A, Gani N, Nissim R, Rydall A, Hales S, Rodin
G, Lo C. The meaning of self-reported death anxiety in advanced
cancer. Palliat Med. 2016;30:772–779.
27. Wan GJ, Counte MA, Cella DF. The influence of personal
expectations on cancer patients’ reports of health-related quality
of life. Psychooncology. 1997;6:1–11.
28. Westhoff PG, de Graeff A, Monninkhof EM, Pomp J, van Vulpen
M, Leer JW, Marijnen CA, van der Linden YM, Dutch Bone
Metastasis Study Group. Quality of life in relation to pain
response to radiation therapy for painful bone metastases. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93:694–701.
29. Wong E, Chow E, Zhang L, Bedard G, Lam K, Fairchild A,
Vassiliou V, Alm El-Din MA, Jesus-Garcia R, Kumar A, Forges
F, Tseng LM, Hou MF, Chie WC, Bottomley A. Factors influencing health related quality of life in cancer patients with bone
metastases. J Palliat Med. 2013;16:915–921.
30. Wu J, Zheng W, Xiao JR, Sun X, Liu WZ, Guo Q. Health-related
quality of life in patients with spinal metastases treated with or
without spinal surgery: a prospective, longitudinal study. Cancer.
2010;116:3875–3882.
31. Wyatt G, Sikorskii A, Tamkus D, You M. Quality of life among
advanced breast cancer patients with and without distant metastasis. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22:272–280.
32. Zimmermann C, Burman D, Swami N, Krzyzanowska MK,
Leighl N, Moore M, Rodin G, Tannock I. Determinants of quality
of life in patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer.
2011;19:621–629.
123