Abstract Purpose There is increasing interest to use patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to evaluate symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer treatment trials. However, there are currently no ...standard recommended approaches for integrating patient-reported AE measures into trials. Methods Approaches are identified from previous trials for selecting AEs for solicited patient reporting, administering patient-reported AE measures, and analyzing and reporting results. Findings Approaches for integrating patient-reported AE measures into cancer trials generally combine current standard methods for clinician-reported AEs and established best practices for using PRO measures. Specific AEs can be selected for a PRO questionnaire based on common and expected reactions in a given trial context, derived from literature review and qualitative/mixed-methods evaluations and should be the same set administered across all arms of a trial. A mechanism for collecting unsolicited patient-reported AEs will also ideally be included. Patients will preferably report at baseline and at the end of active treatment as well as on a frequent standardized schedule during active treatment, such as weekly from home, with a recall period corresponding to the frequency of reporting (eg, past 7 days). Less frequent reporting may be considered after an initial intensive monitoring period for trials of prolonged treatments and during long-term follow-up. Electronic PRO data collection is preferred. Backup data collection for missed PRO reports is advisable to boost response rates. Analysis can use a combination of approaches to AE and PRO data. If a high proportion of patients is experiencing baseline symptoms, systematic subtraction of these from on-study AEs should be considered to improve reporting of symptoms related to treatment. More granular longitudinal analyses of individual symptoms can also be useful. Implications Methods are evolving for integrating patient-reported symptomatic AEs into cancer trials. These methods are expected to further evolve as more data from trials become available.
Purpose
Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse ...Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings.
Methods
A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria.
Results
Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (
n
= 21).
Conclusions
The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.
Background:
The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each ...adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested.
Methods:
A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443).
Results:
In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation.
Conclusion:
A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.
IMPORTANCE: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ...whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference MCID, 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. RESULTS: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 58.3% women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 95% CI, 0.41-4.53; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 95% CI, 0.95-4.17; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 95% CI, 0.90-3.96; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio OR, 1.35 95% CI, 1.08-1.70; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 95% CI, 1.15-1.95; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 95% CI, 1.10-1.81; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090
To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ...(PRO-CTCAE).
To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items.
A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit.
Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30).
A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants' median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P<.05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P<.05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median range intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 0.53-.96). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median range r=0.43 0.10-.56; all P≤.006).
Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.
Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used in routine outpatient cancer care to guide clinical decisions and enhance communication. Prior evidence suggests good patient compliance with reporting ...at scheduled clinic visits, but there is limited evidence about compliance with long-term longitudinal reporting between visits.
Patients receiving chemotherapy for lung, gynecologic, genitourinary, or breast cancer at a tertiary cancer center, with access to a home computer and prior e-mail experience, were asked to self-report seven symptomatic toxicities via the Web between visits. E-mail reminders were sent to participants weekly; patient-reported high-grade toxicities triggered e-mail alerts to nurses; printed reports were provided to oncologists at visits. A priori threshold criteria were set to determine if this data collection approach merited further development based on monthly (≥ 75% participants reporting at least once per month on average) and weekly compliance rates (60% at least once per week).
Between September 2006 and November 2010, 286 patients were enrolled (64% were women; 88% were white; median age, 58 years). Mean follow-up was 34 weeks (range, 2 to 214). On average, monthly compliance was 83%, and weekly compliance was 62%, without attrition until the month before death. Greater compliance was associated with older age and higher education but not with performance status. Compliance was greatest during the initial 12 weeks. Symptomatic illness and technical problems were rarely barriers to compliance.
Monthly compliance with home Web reporting was high, but weekly compliance was lower, warranting strategies to enhance compliance in routine care settings.
To assess the feasibility of measuring symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in a multicenter clinical trial using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common ...Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
Patients enrolled in NRG Oncology's RTOG 1012 (Prophylactic Manuka Honey for Reduction of Chemoradiation Induced Esophagitis-Related Pain during Treatment of Lung Cancer) were asked to self-report 53 PRO-CTCAE items representing 30 symptomatic AEs at 6 time points (baseline; weekly ×4 during treatment; 12 weeks after treatment). Reporting was conducted via wireless tablet computers in clinic waiting areas. Compliance was defined as the proportion of visits when an expected PRO-CTCAE assessment was completed.
Among 226 study sites participating in RTOG 1012, 100% completed 35-minute PRO-CTCAE training for clinical research associates (CRAs); 80 sites enrolled patients, of which 34 (43%) required tablet computers to be provided. All 152 patients in RTOG 1012 agreed to self-report using the PRO-CTCAE (median age 66 years; 47% female; 84% white). Median time for CRAs to learn the system was 60 minutes (range, 30-240 minutes), and median time for CRAs to teach a patient to self-report was 10 minutes (range, 2-60 minutes). Compliance was high, particularly during active treatment, when patients self-reported at 86% of expected time points, although compliance was lower after treatment (72%). Common reasons for noncompliance were institutional errors, such as forgetting to provide computers to participants; patients missing clinic visits; Internet connectivity; and patients feeling "too sick."
Most patients enrolled in a multicenter chemoradiotherapy trial were willing and able to self-report symptomatic AEs at visits using tablet computers. Minimal effort was required by local site staff to support this system. The observed causes of missing data may be obviated by allowing patients to self-report electronically between visits, and by using central compliance monitoring. These approaches are being incorporated into ongoing studies.
Purpose
Missing scores complicate analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) because patients with and without missing scores ...may systematically differ. We focus on optimal analysis methods for incomplete PRO-CTCAE items, with application to two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials.
Methods
In Alliance A091105 and COMET-2, patients completed PRO-CTCAE items before randomization and several times post-randomization (
N
= 64 and 107, respectively). For each trial, we conducted between-arm comparisons on the PRO-CTCAE via complete-case two-sample
t
-tests, mixed modeling with contrast, and multiple imputation followed by two-sample
t
-tests. Because interest lies in whether CTCAE grades can inform missing PRO-CTCAE scores, we performed multiple imputation with and without CTCAE grades as auxiliary variables to assess the added benefit of including them in the imputation model relative to only including PRO-CTCAE scores across all cycles.
Results
PRO-CTCAE completion rates ranged from 100.0 to 71.4% and 100.0 to 77.1% across time in A091105 and COMET-2, respectively. In both trials, mixed modeling and multiple imputation provided the most similar estimates of the average treatment effects. Including CTCAE grades in the imputation model did not consistently narrow confidence intervals of the average treatment effects because correlations for the same PRO-CTCAE item between different cycles were generally stronger than correlations between each PRO-CTCAE item and its corresponding CTCAE grade at the same cycle.
Conclusion
For between-arm comparisons, mixed modeling and multiple imputation are informative techniques for handling missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CTCAE grades do not provide added benefit for informing missing PRO-CTCAE scores. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02066181 (Alliance A091105); NCT01522443 (COMET-2).
PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine ...the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system IVRS, and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system.
Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0-4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed.
103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55-0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62-0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60-0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians ranges for tablet vs. IVRS = -0.04 -0.16-0.22; tablet vs paper = -0.02 -0.11-0.14; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 -0.07-0.19), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/-0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported "no problems" responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper.
Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration.
NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
