Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Ethan Basch, Claus Becker, Lauren J Rogak, Deborah Schrag, Bryce B Reeve, Patricia Spears, Mary Lou Smith, Mrinal M Gounder, Michelle R Mahoney, Gary K Schwartz, Antonia V Bennett, Tito R Mendoza, Charles S Cleeland, Jeff A Sloan, Deborah Watkins Bruner, Gisela Schwab, Thomas M Atkinson, Gita Thanarajasingam, Monica M Bertagnolli, Amylou C Dueck, Ethan Basch, Claus Becker, Lauren J Rogak, Deborah Schrag, Bryce B Reeve, Patricia Spears, Mary Lou Smith, Mrinal M Gounder, Michelle R Mahoney, Gary K Schwartz, Antonia V Bennett, Tito R Mendoza, Charles S Cleeland, Jeff A Sloan, Deborah Watkins Bruner, Gisela Schwab, Thomas M Atkinson, Gita Thanarajasingam, Monica M Bertagnolli, Amylou C Dueck

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Adverse event; Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; health-related quality of life; oncology; patient-reported outcome; symptom; toxicity.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Contour plots of PRO-CTCAE composite grades by frequency, severity, and interference scores. Circles show score combinations that have composite grades that were directionally inconsistent with the composite grades of neighboring score combinations.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Mean EORTC QLQ-C30 Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Summary Scores with 95% confidence intervals by PRO-CTCAE composite grades for PRO-CTCAE symptomatic adverse events matching the recommended core symptoms of Reeve et al. Higher EORTC QLQ-C30 scores indicate better health-related quality of life.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Distribution of PRO-CTCAE data (individual severity and interference scores and composite grades) for hand-foot syndrome in A091105 at each assessment time point.

References

    1. Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014. September 29;106(9).
    1. Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101(23):1624–32.
    1. Kluetz PG, Papadopoulos EJ, Johnson LL, et al. Focusing on Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials-Response. Clin Cancer Res. 2016. November 15;22(22):5618.
    1. National Cancer Institute. Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Available at: . Last accessed June 20, 2017.
    1. Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA, et al. Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncol. 2015. November; 1(8):1051–9.
    1. Hay JL, Atkinson TM, Reeve BB, et al. Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Qual Life Res. 2014. February; 23(1):257–69.
    1. Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Mitchell SA, et al. Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016. February 19; 14:24. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0426-6.
    1. Basch E, Rogak LJ, Dueck AC. Methods for Implementing and Reporting Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) Measures of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Cancer Clinical Trials. Clin Ther. 2016. April;38(4):821–30.
    1. Basch E, Pugh SL, Dueck AC, et al. Feasibility of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a Chemoradiotherapy Cooperative Group Multicenter Clinical Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017. June 1; 98(2):409–418.
    1. Basch E, Dueck AC. Patient-reported outcome measurement in drug discovery: a tool to improve accuracy and completeness of efficacy and safety data. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2016. August;11(8):753–8.
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, 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.
    1. Gundy CM, Fayers PM, Groenvold M,et al. Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2012. November;21(9):1607–17.
    1. Jonckheere AR. A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika 1954; 41:133–45.
    1. Gounder MM, Mahoney MR, Van Tine BA, et al. Sorafenib for Advanced and Refractory Desmoid Tumors. N Engl J Med. 2018. December 20;379(25):2417–2428.
    1. Basch EM, Scholz M, de Bono JS, et al. Cabozantinib Versus Mitoxantrone-prednisone in Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial with a Primary Pain Endpoint. Eur Urol. 2018. December 4. pii: S0302-2838(18)30932-1.
    1. Kim J, Singh H, Ayalew K, et al. Use of PRO Measures to Inform Tolerability in Oncology Trials: Implications for Clinical Review, IND Safety Reporting, and Clinical Site Inspections. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(8):1780–1784.
    1. McFatrich M, Brondon J, Lucas NR, et al. Mapping child and adolescent self-reported symptom data to clinician-reported adverse event grading to improve pediatric oncology care and research. Cancer. 2019. September 25.
    1. Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Dueck AC, et al. Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014. July 8;106(7). pii: dju129.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera