TY - JOUR
T1 - Income and Employment of Patients at the Start of and During Follow-up After Palliative Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastasis
AU - Shirato, Hiroki
AU - Harada, Hideyuki
AU - Iwasaki, Yukako
AU - Notsu, Akifumi
AU - Yamada, Kazunari
AU - Uezono, Haruka
AU - Koide, Yutaro
AU - Wada, Hitoshi
AU - Kubota, Hikaru
AU - Shikama, Naoto
AU - Yamazaki, Takuya
AU - Ito, Kei
AU - Heianna, Joichi
AU - Okada, Yukinori
AU - Tonari, Ayako
AU - Takahashi, Shigeo
AU - Kosugi, Takashi
AU - Ejima, Yasuo
AU - Katoh, Norio
AU - Yoshida, Kayo
AU - Komiyama, Takafumi
AU - Uchida, Nobue
AU - Miwa, Misako
AU - Watanabe, Miho
AU - Nagakura, Hisayasu
AU - Saito, Tetsuo
AU - Ikeda, Hiroko
AU - Asakawa, Isao
AU - Seiichiro, Tateishi
AU - Takahashi, Takeo
AU - Shigematsu, Naoyuki
N1 - Funding Information:
Sources of support: This study was supported by the Health Labor Sciences Research Grant from the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan (19EA1010).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/7/1
Y1 - 2023/7/1
N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to understand the income and employment status of patients at the start of and during follow-up after palliative radiation therapy for bone metastasis. Methods and Materials: From December 2020 to March 2021, a prospective multi-institutional observational study was conducted to investigate income and employment of patients at the start of administration of radiation therapy for bone metastasis and at 2 and 6 months after treatment. Of 333 patients referred to radiation therapy for bone metastasis, 101 were not registered, mainly because of their poor general condition, and another 8 were excluded from the follow-up analysis owing to ineligibility. Results: In 224 patients analyzed, 108 had retired for reasons unrelated to cancer, 43 had retired for reasons related to cancer, 31 were taking leave, and 2 had lost their jobs at the time of registration. The number of patients who were in the working group was 40 (30 with no change in income and 10 with decreased income) at registration, 35 at 2 months, and 24 at 6 months. Younger patients (P = 0), patients with better performance status (P = 0), patients who were ambulatory (P = .008), and patients with lower scores on a numerical rating scale of pain (P = 0) were significantly more likely to be in the working group at registration. There were 9 patients who experienced improvements in their working status or income at least once in the follow-up after radiation therapy. Conclusions: The majority of patients with bone metastasis were not working at the start of or after radiation therapy, but the number of patients who were working was not negligible. Radiation oncologists should be aware of the working status of patients and provide appropriate support for each patient. The benefit of radiation therapy to support patients continuing their work and returning to work should be investigated further in prospective studies.
AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to understand the income and employment status of patients at the start of and during follow-up after palliative radiation therapy for bone metastasis. Methods and Materials: From December 2020 to March 2021, a prospective multi-institutional observational study was conducted to investigate income and employment of patients at the start of administration of radiation therapy for bone metastasis and at 2 and 6 months after treatment. Of 333 patients referred to radiation therapy for bone metastasis, 101 were not registered, mainly because of their poor general condition, and another 8 were excluded from the follow-up analysis owing to ineligibility. Results: In 224 patients analyzed, 108 had retired for reasons unrelated to cancer, 43 had retired for reasons related to cancer, 31 were taking leave, and 2 had lost their jobs at the time of registration. The number of patients who were in the working group was 40 (30 with no change in income and 10 with decreased income) at registration, 35 at 2 months, and 24 at 6 months. Younger patients (P = 0), patients with better performance status (P = 0), patients who were ambulatory (P = .008), and patients with lower scores on a numerical rating scale of pain (P = 0) were significantly more likely to be in the working group at registration. There were 9 patients who experienced improvements in their working status or income at least once in the follow-up after radiation therapy. Conclusions: The majority of patients with bone metastasis were not working at the start of or after radiation therapy, but the number of patients who were working was not negligible. Radiation oncologists should be aware of the working status of patients and provide appropriate support for each patient. The benefit of radiation therapy to support patients continuing their work and returning to work should be investigated further in prospective studies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151453580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85151453580&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101205
DO - 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101205
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85151453580
SN - 2452-1094
VL - 8
JO - Advances in Radiation Oncology
JF - Advances in Radiation Oncology
IS - 4
M1 - 101205
ER -
