Patient-Reported Outcomes vs. Clinician Symptom Reporting During Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer.

Libertad T Flores, Antonia V Bennett, Ethel B Law, Carla Hajj, Mindy P Griffith, Karyn A Goodman
{"title":"Patient-Reported Outcomes vs. Clinician Symptom Reporting During Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer.","authors":"Libertad T Flores, Antonia V Bennett, Ethel B Law, Carla Hajj, Mindy P Griffith, Karyn A Goodman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is a component of standard therapy for patients with T3/T4 or node-positive rectal cancer and may be associated with acute gastrointestinal toxicity. In this retrospective study, we sought to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with clinician reports of acute symptoms experienced by rectal cancer patients receiving chemoradiation.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Charts of 199 patients with rectal cancer who received chemoradiation at some point from November 2006 through February 2011 were reviewed. Clinicians assessed toxicity weekly using Common Terminology for Clinical Adverse Events version 3.0, and, beginning in September 2009, the patients reported symptoms weekly, using the 7-item Bowel Problems Scale. One hundred ninety-seven patients with at least 1 clinician or patient assessment were eligible for the study. We used descriptive statistics to compare patient and clinician assessments in a subgroup of 65 patients (paired group) who had at least 1 patient and clinician assessment on the same day. Cohen's κ coefficient was used to evaluate agreement between the patients and the clinicians.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The patients reported diarrhea and proctitis more often than clinicians reported them throughout treatment. Uncorrected agreement for diarrhea and proctitis was 82% and 72%, respectively. Cohen's κ was .64 for diarrhea, indicating moderate agreement, and .22 for proctitis, indicating only slight agreement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest a discrepancy between clinician and PRO reports. Further study may discern potential benefits of collecting PROs in prospective studies and in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":12695,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal cancer research : GCR","volume":"5 4","pages":"119-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433260/pdf/gcr119.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal cancer research : GCR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is a component of standard therapy for patients with T3/T4 or node-positive rectal cancer and may be associated with acute gastrointestinal toxicity. In this retrospective study, we sought to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with clinician reports of acute symptoms experienced by rectal cancer patients receiving chemoradiation.

Patients and methods: Charts of 199 patients with rectal cancer who received chemoradiation at some point from November 2006 through February 2011 were reviewed. Clinicians assessed toxicity weekly using Common Terminology for Clinical Adverse Events version 3.0, and, beginning in September 2009, the patients reported symptoms weekly, using the 7-item Bowel Problems Scale. One hundred ninety-seven patients with at least 1 clinician or patient assessment were eligible for the study. We used descriptive statistics to compare patient and clinician assessments in a subgroup of 65 patients (paired group) who had at least 1 patient and clinician assessment on the same day. Cohen's κ coefficient was used to evaluate agreement between the patients and the clinicians.

Results: The patients reported diarrhea and proctitis more often than clinicians reported them throughout treatment. Uncorrected agreement for diarrhea and proctitis was 82% and 72%, respectively. Cohen's κ was .64 for diarrhea, indicating moderate agreement, and .22 for proctitis, indicating only slight agreement.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest a discrepancy between clinician and PRO reports. Further study may discern potential benefits of collecting PROs in prospective studies and in clinical practice.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直肠癌化疗期间患者报告结果与临床医生报告症状的对比。
背景:盆腔放疗同时配合以 5-氟尿嘧啶为基础的化疗是 T3/T4 或结节阳性直肠癌患者标准治疗的一部分,可能会引起急性胃肠道毒性。在这项回顾性研究中,我们试图比较患者报告的结果(PROs)和临床医生对接受化疗的直肠癌患者急性症状的报告:我们查阅了从 2006 年 11 月到 2011 年 2 月期间接受化疗的 199 名直肠癌患者的病历。临床医生每周使用临床不良事件通用术语 3.0 版评估毒性,从 2009 年 9 月开始,患者每周使用 7 项排便问题量表报告症状。至少接受过一次临床医生或患者评估的 197 名患者符合研究条件。我们使用描述性统计方法比较了 65 名患者(配对组)中患者和临床医生的评估结果,这些患者在同一天至少接受了一次患者和临床医生的评估。Cohen's κ系数用于评估患者与临床医生之间的一致性:结果:在整个治疗过程中,患者报告腹泻和直肠炎的频率高于临床医生。腹泻和直肠炎的未校正一致性分别为 82% 和 72%。腹泻的 Cohen's κ 为 0.64,表明有一定程度的一致性,直肠炎的 Cohen's κ 为 0.22,表明只有轻微的一致性:我们的研究结果表明,临床医生和PRO报告之间存在差异。进一步的研究可能会发现在前瞻性研究和临床实践中收集 PROs 的潜在益处。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
From the liver to the foot: a case of systemic embolism and acrometastasis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Pseudomyxoma peritonei metastatic to the bone: case report and review of systemic management. Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Intra-atrial Extension Responding to Transarterial Chemoembolization via the Right Hepatic and Right Inferior Phrenic Arteries. Metastatic breast cancer masquerading as primary gastric cancer: case report and review of the literature. A case of primary colonic small-cell carcinoma arising in a patient with long-standing ulcerative colitis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1