Statistical properties of items and summary scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) in a diverse cancer sample.
Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Ethan Basch, Lauren J Rogak, Blake T Langlais, Gita Thanarajasingam, Brenda F Ginos, Minji K Lee, Claire Yee, Sandra A Mitchell, Lori M Minasian, Tito R Mendoza, Antonia V Bennett, Deborah Schrag, Amylou C Dueck, Gina L Mazza
{"title":"Statistical properties of items and summary scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE<sup>®</sup>) in a diverse cancer sample.","authors":"Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Ethan Basch, Lauren J Rogak, Blake T Langlais, Gita Thanarajasingam, Brenda F Ginos, Minji K Lee, Claire Yee, Sandra A Mitchell, Lori M Minasian, Tito R Mendoza, Antonia V Bennett, Deborah Schrag, Amylou C Dueck, Gina L Mazza","doi":"10.1177/17407745241286065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE<sup>®</sup>) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event (<i>r</i> = 0.53 to 0.77, all <i>p</i> < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κ<sub>weighted</sub> = 0.26 to 0.60, all <i>p</i> < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores (<i>r</i> = 0.67 to 0.97, all <i>p</i> < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event (<i>r</i> = 0.69 to 0.94, all <i>p</i> < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely (<i>r</i> = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"17407745241286065"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241286065","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting.
Methods: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated.
Results: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event (r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κweighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores (r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event (r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely (r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events.
Conclusions: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.