Feasibility of frequent monitoring of symptoms using the PRO-CTCAE in the NRG-BR004 clinical trial.

IF 3.4 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Hanna Bandos, Sungjin Kim, N Lynn Henry, Ron D Hays, Vinicius F Calsavara, Michael Luu, Gillian Gresham, Kit Y Lu, William J Irvin, J Marie Suga, Shahzad Siddique, Reena S Cecchini, André Rogatko, Greg Yothers, Mourad Tighiouart, Patricia A Ganz
{"title":"Feasibility of frequent monitoring of symptoms using the PRO-CTCAE in the NRG-BR004 clinical trial.","authors":"Hanna Bandos, Sungjin Kim, N Lynn Henry, Ron D Hays, Vinicius F Calsavara, Michael Luu, Gillian Gresham, Kit Y Lu, William J Irvin, J Marie Suga, Shahzad Siddique, Reena S Cecchini, André Rogatko, Greg Yothers, Mourad Tighiouart, Patricia A Ganz","doi":"10.1093/jncics/pkaf032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The PRO-CTCAE Measurement System was designed to enhance the quality of the standard toxicity evaluation in clinical trials. We developed a sub-study within NRG BR004, a phase III clinical trial in patients with newly documented HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), to examine the added value and feasibility of frequent PRO-CTCAE data collection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were asked to complete 23 PRO-CTCAE items assessing 12 symptoms. Electronic PRO (ePRO) reporting was preferred; however, paper administration was allowed. The data on items assessed before treatment initiation, then weekly during Cycles 1-2 (12 weeks) are presented herein. Feasibility of frequent assessment with ePRO reporting was assessed using these data and was pre-defined as ≥ 25% of patients being compliant (submitted ≥75% of scheduled assessments). We also examined PRO-CTCAE and clinician-reported CTCAE data for key symptoms using maximum toxicity grade and the toxicity index (TI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 80% of patients (82 of 103) were compliant with expected weekly assessments (90% CI : 0.72-0.86). For all symptoms, the median maximum grade (TI value) of clinician-reported CTCAE was lower than the median maximum score (TI value) of patient-reported PRO-CTCAE. The differences in the data trend for weekly vs less frequent assessment were more apparent when data were evaluated using the TI vs the maximum score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Weekly assessments within the first two chemotherapy cycles were feasible in this trial of MBC patients. As expected, patients reported greater severity of symptoms than clinicians. Demonstrating the feasibility of frequent assessment could have implications for future research and clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials.gov: </strong>NCT03199885 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03199885).</p>","PeriodicalId":14681,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkaf032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The PRO-CTCAE Measurement System was designed to enhance the quality of the standard toxicity evaluation in clinical trials. We developed a sub-study within NRG BR004, a phase III clinical trial in patients with newly documented HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), to examine the added value and feasibility of frequent PRO-CTCAE data collection.

Methods: Patients were asked to complete 23 PRO-CTCAE items assessing 12 symptoms. Electronic PRO (ePRO) reporting was preferred; however, paper administration was allowed. The data on items assessed before treatment initiation, then weekly during Cycles 1-2 (12 weeks) are presented herein. Feasibility of frequent assessment with ePRO reporting was assessed using these data and was pre-defined as ≥ 25% of patients being compliant (submitted ≥75% of scheduled assessments). We also examined PRO-CTCAE and clinician-reported CTCAE data for key symptoms using maximum toxicity grade and the toxicity index (TI).

Results: Overall, 80% of patients (82 of 103) were compliant with expected weekly assessments (90% CI : 0.72-0.86). For all symptoms, the median maximum grade (TI value) of clinician-reported CTCAE was lower than the median maximum score (TI value) of patient-reported PRO-CTCAE. The differences in the data trend for weekly vs less frequent assessment were more apparent when data were evaluated using the TI vs the maximum score.

Conclusions: Weekly assessments within the first two chemotherapy cycles were feasible in this trial of MBC patients. As expected, patients reported greater severity of symptoms than clinicians. Demonstrating the feasibility of frequent assessment could have implications for future research and clinical practice.

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03199885 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03199885).

在NRG-BR004临床试验中使用PRO-CTCAE频繁监测症状的可行性。
背景:PRO-CTCAE测量系统旨在提高临床试验中标准毒性评价的质量。我们在NRG BR004中开展了一项子研究,这是一项针对新记录的her2阳性转移性乳腺癌(MBC)患者的III期临床试验,以检验频繁收集PRO-CTCAE数据的附加价值和可行性。方法:要求患者完成23个PRO-CTCAE项目,评估12种症状。电子PRO (ePRO)报告优先;但是,纸张管理是允许的。在治疗开始前评估项目的数据,然后在1-2周期(12周)每周评估项目的数据。使用这些数据评估ePRO报告频繁评估的可行性,并预先定义为≥25%的患者符合要求(提交≥75%的计划评估)。我们还检查了PRO-CTCAE和临床报告的CTCAE数据,使用最大毒性等级和毒性指数(TI)来确定关键症状。结果:总体而言,80%的患者(103例中的82例)符合预期的每周评估(90% CI: 0.72-0.86)。对于所有症状,临床报告的CTCAE的最大中位数等级(TI值)低于患者报告的PRO-CTCAE的最大中位数评分(TI值)。当使用TI与最高分数对数据进行评估时,每周与不频繁评估的数据趋势差异更为明显。结论:在该试验中,在前两个化疗周期内每周进行评估是可行的。正如预期的那样,患者报告的症状比临床医生严重。证明频繁评估的可行性可能对未来的研究和临床实践产生影响。clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03199885 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03199885)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
JNCI Cancer Spectrum Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信