Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review

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.

Methods for Implementing and Reporting Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) Measures of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Cancer Clinical Trials

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.

Clinical Indicators of Psychosocial Distress Predict for Acute Radiation-Induced Fatigue in Patients Receiving Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer: An Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess the magnitude and predictors of patient-reported fatigue among breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy (RT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients receiving breast RT completed a survey querying fatigue at each weekly on-treatment visit. Patient-reported fatigue severity and interference was assessed on an ordinal scale of 0 to 4, using a validated scoring system. Baseline anxiety and depression scores were also obtained. The kinetics of mean fatigue scores per week and the maximum fatigue scores over the course of the entire treatment were assessed, and clinical predictors were identified by univariate and multivariate regression.

RESULTS

The average fatigue severity and interference scores were 0.6 and 0.46. The average fatigue scores increased to an equivalent extent from week to week, with expected increases of 0.99 in fatigue severity and 0.85 in interference over 7 weeks. Patients treated with hypofractionated RT (HF-RT) versus conventionally fractionated RT (CF-RT) had significantly fewer maximum fatigue severity or interference scores that were >2 (ie, severe or very severe; 29% vs 10% for severity, and 26% vs 8% for interference, P<.01). Age ≤45 years, presence of psychiatric/pain-related comorbidities, and baseline sadness and anxiety severity were predictive of average and maximum fatigue scores (P<.05), but variables related to treatment intensity (eg, mastectomy vs lumpectomy, chemotherapy use, radiation target volumes) and other host factors (working, children, marital status, proximity to RT facility) were not.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported fatigue modestly increases over RT courses, with less maximum fatigue reported with HF-RT. Younger age and baseline sadness, anxiety, and psychiatric/pain-related comorbidities are powerful predictors of fatigue, whereas other factors, such as treatment intensity, are not. Future studies will investigate interventions for patients at high risk for fatigue.

Linguistic validation of the Spanish version of the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

PURPOSE

The U.S. NCI's PRO-CTCAE is a library of self-report items for assessing symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical trials from the patient perspective. The aim of this study was to translate and linguistically validate a Spanish version.

METHODS

PRO-CTCAE's 124 items were translated from English into Spanish using multiple forward and back translations. Native Spanish speakers undergoing cancer treatment were enrolled at six cancer treatment sites. Participants each completed approximately 50 items and were then interviewed using cognitive probes. The interviews were analyzed at the item level by linguistic themes, and responses were examined for evidence of equivalence to English. Items for which ≥20 % of participants experienced difficulties were reviewed, and phrasing was revised and then retested in subsequent interviews. Items where <20 % of respondents experienced difficulties were also reviewed and were considered for rephrasing and retesting.

RESULTS

One hundred nine participants from diverse Spanish-speaking countries were enrolled (77 in Round 1 and 32 in Round 2). A majority of items were well comprehended in Round 1. Two items presented difficulties in ≥20 % of participants and were revised/retested without further difficulties. Two items presented difficulties in <20 %, and when retested exhibited no further difficulties. Two items presented difficulties in <20 %, but were not revised due to lack of alternatives. Sixteen items presented difficulties in ≤12 % and were not revised because difficulties were minor.

CONCLUSIONS

The Spanish PRO-CTCAE has been developed and refined for use in Spanish-speaking populations, with high levels of comprehension and equivalence to the English PRO-CTCAE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01436240.

The level of association between functional performance status measures and patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The process of assessing patient symptoms and functionality using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and functional performance status (FPS) is an essential aspect of patient-centered oncology research and care. However, PRO and FPS measures are often employed separately or inconsistently combined. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the level of association between PRO and FPS measures to determine their differential or combined utility.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using five databases (1966 to February 2014) to identify studies that described an association between PRO and FPS. Studies were excluded if they were non-cancer specific, did not include adults aged 18 or older, or were review articles. Publications were selected for review by consensus among two authors, with a third author arbitrating as needed.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria. FPS was primarily assessed by clinicians using the ECOG Performance Status or Karnofsky Performance Status measures. PROs were captured using a variety of measures, with numerous domains assessed (e.g., pain, fatigue, and general health status). Concordance between PROs and FPS measures was widely variable, falling in the low to moderate range (0.09-0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite consistency in the method of capture of PROs or FPS, domain capture varied considerably across reviewed studies. Irrespective of the method of capturing PROs or FPS, the quantified level of association between these two areas was moderate at best, providing evidence that FPS and PRO assessments offer unique information to assist clinicians in their decision-making.

Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

IMPORTANCE

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).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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).

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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.

Docetaxel, capecitabine and concurrent radiotherapy for gastric cancer patients with postoperative locoregional recurrence

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with docetaxel and capecitabine versus docetaxel and capecitabine chemotherapy for gastric cancer patients with postoperative locoregional recurrence.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2011, 81 patients with locoregional recurrence after curative resection of gastric cancer were enrolled. Thirty-nine (CCRT group) received involved-field radiotherapy with oral capecitabine (twice daily, 5 days/week) and intravenous infusion of docetaxel (once weekly). The remaining 42 patients (chemotherapy group) were treated with oral capecitabine (twice daily, days 1-14) followed by intravenous infusion of docetaxel (days 1 and 8). The overall response rate, overall symptom control rate, toxicity or adverse reactions, and overall survival (OS) were compared.

RESULTS

The overall response rate (CR+PR) was significantly higher in the CCRT group (79.5%) than the chemotherapy group (54.8%). In CCRT individuals, the control rates for bleeding, pain, and dysphagia/obstruction were 87.5%, 75%, and 71.4%, respectively, versus 63.2%, 50%, and 28.6% in the chemotherapy group. CCRT patients had a better symptom control rate than the chemotherapy group (52.5% vs. 80%). Adverse reactions were nonsignificantly more severe in CCRT patients. Finally, median OS was longer in the CCRT vs. chemotherapy group (14.2 vs. 6.4 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Involved-field radiotherapy with docetaxel and capecitabine was effective and well tolerated. These findings provide further insight into the role of CCRT in gastric cancer. However, this was not a randomized controlled study and the number of patients was relatively small, suggesting that cautious interpretation of cumulative estimates is warranted.

Non-rash dermatologic adverse events related to targeted therapies

OBJECTIVES

To provide background information and management strategies for non-rash dermatological adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed journal articles, professional manuals, online sources.

CONCLUSION

During the last decade, many dermatological adverse events of targeted therapy have been reported, including xerosis, skin fissures, pruritus, photosensitivity, pigmentation changes, hair and nail changes, hand-foot skin reaction, squamoproliferative lesions, Stevens-Johnsons syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Although evidenced-based treatment options are scarce, many recommendations have been described in the literature that should be considered to apply in daily practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nursing practice will be enhanced by education, assessment, and management recommendations.

Symptom prevalence in lung and colorectal cancer patients

CONTEXT

Relatively few data are available about symptoms among cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the prevalence and severity of symptoms among a large, representative cohort of newly diagnosed cancer patients.

METHODS

We collected survey data about symptoms (pain, fatigue, depression, nausea/vomiting, cough, dyspnea, and diarrhea) from 5422 patients with incident lung and colorectal cancer from the diverse, nationally representative Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium cohort. We described the prevalence of any symptoms and moderate/severe symptoms approximately four to six months after diagnosis. We used logistic regression to identify patient and clinical characteristics associated with symptoms, and calculated adjusted proportions of patients with symptoms.

RESULTS

In total, 5067 (93.5%) patients reported at least one symptom in the four weeks before their survey, with 51% reporting at least one moderate/severe symptom. Lung cancer patients reported more symptoms than colorectal cancer patients. Patients who received treatment or had more comorbidities were more likely to report symptoms. For example, after adjustment, patients who received chemotherapy during the six weeks before the survey were more likely than others to report at least one symptom (97.3% vs. 90.8%, P<0.001), and at least one moderate/severe symptom (56.8% vs. 46.2%, P<0.001). After adjustment, early- vs. late-stage patients did not differ in reports of at least one symptom (93.6% vs. 93.4%, P=0.853) and differed only slightly in reports of at least one moderate/severe symptom (53.3% vs. 49.6%, P=0.009).

CONCLUSION

Most recently diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer patients have cancer-related symptoms regardless of stage, and more than half have at least one moderate/severe symptom.

Patient-reported outcomes and survivorship in radiation oncology: overcoming the cons

PURPOSE

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become a key component of clinical oncology trials, many challenges exist regarding their optimal application. The goal of this article is to methodically review these barriers and suggest strategies to overcome them. This review will primarily focus on radiation oncology examples, will address issues regarding the "why, how, and what" of PROs, and will provide strategies for difficult problems such as methods for reducing missing data. This review will also address cancer survivorship because it closely relates to PROs.

METHODS

Key articles focusing on PROs, quality of life, and survivorship issues in oncology trials are highlighted, with an emphasis on radiation oncology clinical trials. Publications and Web sites of various governmental and regulatory agencies are also reviewed.

RESULTS

The study of PROs in clinical oncology trials has become well established. There are guidelines provided by organizations such as the US Food and Drug Administration that clearly indicate the importance of and methodology for studying PROs. Clinical trials in oncology have repeatedly demonstrated the value of studying PROs and suggested ways to overcome some of the key challenges. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) has led some of these efforts, and their contributions are highlighted. The current state of cancer survivorship guidelines is also discussed.

CONCLUSION

The study of PROs presents significant benefits in understanding and treating toxicities and enhancing quality of life; however, challenges remain. Strategies are presented to overcome these hurdles, which will ultimately improve cancer survivorship.

Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE)

The standard approach for documenting symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials involves investigator reporting using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Because this approach underdetects symptomatic AEs, the NCI issued two contracts to create a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement system as a companion to the CTCAE, called the PRO-CTCAE. This Commentary describes development of the PRO-CTCAE by a group of multidisciplinary investigators and patient representatives and provides an overview of qualitative and quantitative studies of its measurement properties. A systematic evaluation of all 790 AEs listed in the CTCAE identified 78 appropriate for patient self-reporting. For each of these, a PRO-CTCAE plain language term in English and one to three items characterizing the frequency, severity, and/or activity interference of the AE were created, rendering a library of 124 PRO-CTCAE items. These items were refined in a cognitive interviewing study among patients on active cancer treatment with diverse educational, racial, and geographic backgrounds. Favorable measurement properties of the items, including construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and between-mode equivalence, were determined prospectively in a demographically diverse population of patients receiving treatments for many different tumor types. A software platform was built to administer PRO-CTCAE items to clinical trial participants via the internet or telephone interactive voice response and was refined through usability testing. Work is ongoing to translate the PRO-CTCAE into multiple languages and to determine the optimal approach for integrating the PRO-CTCAE into clinical trial workflow and AE analyses. It is envisioned that the PRO-CTCAE will enhance the precision and patient-centeredness of adverse event reporting in cancer clinical research.

Preliminary Development and Evaluation of an Algorithm to Identify Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Toxicities Using Electronic Medical Records and Administrative Data

PURPOSE

Breast cancer chemotherapy toxicity is not well documented outside of randomized trials. We developed and conducted preliminary evaluation of an algorithm to detect grade 3 and 4 toxicities using electronic data from a large integrated managed care organization.

METHODS

The algorithm used administrative, pharmacy, and electronic data from outpatient, emergency room, and inpatient records of 99 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2006 to 2009 who underwent chemotherapy. Data were abstracted for 12 months post-treatment initiation (24 months for trastuzumab recipients). An oncology nurse independently blindly reviewed records; these results were the "gold standard." Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for overall toxicity, categories of toxicities, and toxicity by age or regimen. The algorithm was applied to an independent sample of 1,575 patients with breast cancer diagnosed during the study period to estimate prevalence rates.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity for detecting chemotherapy-related toxicity was 89% (95% CI, 77% to 95%). The highest sensitivity was for identification of hematologic toxicities (97%; 95% CI, 84% to 99%). There were good sensitivities for infectious toxicity, but rates dropped for GI and neurological toxicities. Specificity was high within each category (89% to 99%), but when combined to measure any toxicity, it was lower (70%; 95% CI, 57% to 81%). When applied to an independent chemotherapy sample, the algorithm estimates a 26% rate of hematologic toxicity; rates were higher among patients age ≥ 65 years versus less than 65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

If validated in other samples and health care settings, algorithms to capture toxicity could be useful in comparative and cost-effectiveness evaluations of community practice-delivered treatment.