Evaluating the use of the EORTC patient-reported outcome measures for improving inter-rater reliability of CTCAE ratings in a mixed population of cancer patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Lisa M Wintner, Johannes M Giesinger, Monika Sztankay, Andrew Bottomley, Bernhard Holzner, EORTC Quality of Life Group, Lisa M Wintner, Johannes M Giesinger, Monika Sztankay, Andrew Bottomley, Bernhard Holzner, EORTC Quality of Life Group

Abstract

Background: In oncology, detection and tracking of adverse events are of top priority and rely mostly on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Besides, clinical trials use as well patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess those adverse events, which are only accessible through patient self-reporting, such as fatigue, pain, and sleep disorders. Especially those issues that are not visible from the outside are often misinterpreted and underestimated by mere provider ratings. This trial aims at evaluating the impact of providing PRO data to providers on the accuracy of adverse event assessment in terms of inter-rater reliability of CTCAE ratings.

Methods: The trial uses a cross-sectional, unblinded, randomized controlled trial design with two trial arms and a single assessment time point. Eligible patients (aged 18 and above, any cancer diagnosis, currently under treatment, inpatient or day clinic setting, present symptom burden, no psychiatric or mental problems, written informed consent) complete an electronic version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and 16 additional questions taken from the EORTC Item Library. PRO data is immediately processed and made available to CTCAE rating providers for conducting their ratings during the medical encounter. Patients are randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention group (providers see PRO results on the same screen as the CTCAE rating) and the control group (no access to PRO data during the CTCAE rating). A superiority analysis will compare the inter-rater reliability (using intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients) between the control and the intervention groups for each adverse event evaluated.

Discussion: The presented trial will demonstrate potential benefits of using PRO measures to improve the reliability of CTCAE ratings in cancer trials and the identification of adverse events. The new insights gained may lead to a new strategy for evaluating adverse events in clinical trials by combining patient and provider ratings. This might also have implications for daily clinical practice and cancer registries.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04066868 . Registered on August 26, 2019. Competence Center for Clinical Trials of the Medical University of Innsbruck 20190513-2007. Registered on May 14, 2019. (version 6.0, March 18, 2019).

Keywords: Cancer; Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE); Electronic data assessment; Inter-rater reliability; Patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Conflict of interest statement

BH is an owner of intellectual property rights of the CHES software. The other authors do not state any competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the trial procedure
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) figure
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Presentation of the graphical design of CTCAE ratings and PRO data according to the allocated trial group

References

    1. National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 2017. Available from: . Accessed 1 Sept 2020.
    1. Fayers P, Machin D. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2007.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:79. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79.
    1. Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T, Barz A, Culkin A, Kris MG, et al. Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(11):903–909. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70910-X.
    1. Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes and the evolution of adverse event reporting in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(32):5121–5127. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.4784.
    1. Atkinson TM, Rogak LJ, Heon N, Ryan SJ, Shaw M, Stark LP, et al. Exploring differences in adverse symptom event grading thresholds between clinicians and patients in the clinical trial setting. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017;143(4):735–743. doi: 10.1007/s00432-016-2335-9.
    1. Neben-Wittich MA, Atherton PJ, Schwartz DJ, Sloan JA, Griffin PC, Deming RL, et al. Comparison of provider-assessed and patient-reported outcome measures of acute skin toxicity during a phase III trial of mometasone cream versus placebo during breast radiotherapy: the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N06C4) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(2):397–402. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.05.065.
    1. Atkinson TM, Andreotti CF, Roberts KE, Saracino RM, Hernandez M, Basch E. The level of association between functional performance status measures and patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(12):3645–3652. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2923-2.
    1. Atkinson TM, Li Y, Coffey CW, Sit L, Shaw M, Lavene D, et al. Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1159–1164. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0031-4.
    1. Kaba H, Fukuda H, Yamamoto S, Ohashi Y. Reliability at the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2004;31(8):1187–1192.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–207. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.
    1. Holzner B, Giesinger JM, Pinggera J, Zugal S, Schopf F, Oberguggenberger AS, et al. The Computer-based Health Evaluation Software (CHES): a software for electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:126. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-126.
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, 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(5):365–376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365.
    1. Cicchetti D. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.
    1. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. USA: Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다