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":"不同癌症样本中患者报告结果版《不良事件通用术语标准》(PRO-CTCAE®)项目和总分的统计特性。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景/目的:患者报告结果版不良事件通用术语标准(PRO-CTCAE®)旨在从患者角度捕捉症状性不良事件。我们旨在描述 PRO-CTCAE 项目和总分的统计特性,并为有关 PRO-CTCAE 管理和报告的建议提供证据:利用 PRO-CTCAE 验证研究(NCT02158637)的数据,计算了 PRO-CTCAE 项目、综合评分以及症状性不良事件不同属性(频率、严重程度和/或干扰)的平均分和最高分的流行率、平均值和标准偏差。对每种不良事件的属性之间的相关性和一致性、属性与综合评分之间的相关性以及综合评分、平均分和最高分之间的相关性进行了估算:899名不同癌症类型的患者完成了PRO-CTCAE项目。大多数患者报告经历了一种或多种不良事件,其中最普遍的不良事件是疲劳(87.7%)、悲伤/不开心(66.0%)、焦虑(63.6%)、疼痛(63.2%)、失眠(61.8%)和口干(60.0%)。在一个不良事件中,属性的相关性为中度到高度相关(r = 0.53 到 0.77,所有 p 加权 = 0.26 到 0.60,所有 p r = 0.67 到 0.97,所有 p r = 0.69 到 0.94,所有 p r = 0.04 到 0.68),但在概念相关的不良事件中,属性的相关性为中度到高度相关:结论:研究结果为 PRO-CTCAE 的管理和报告建议提供了证据,建议对每种不良事件进行全套属性管理,并报告属性和总分。
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.
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.