ArticleCancer2018
Estimating global treatment toxicity burden from adverse-event data.
Article in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of nurses' and physicians' perception of cancer treatment burden based on reported adverse events.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2019Trial
- Review
- Combining Response and Toxicity Data to Implement Project Optimus.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
- The Weighted Toxicity Score: Confirmation of a Simple Metric to Communicate Toxicity in Randomized Trials of Systemic Cancer Therapy.The oncologist · 2024Article
- Adaptive Bayesian phase I clinical trial designs for estimating the maximum tolerated doses for two drugs while fully utilizing all toxicity information.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA summary measure that reflects the global toxicity burden of a treatment is essential for comparing therapies. Current toxicity summaries are ad hoc and do not distinguish among the severities and types of toxicities. Here a clinically feasible method for estimating the toxicity burden, based on a prospective evaluation of the toxicity profile of a randomized clinical trial of 746 prostate cancer patients conducted by SWOG, is proposed.
methodsFor 308 patients who experienced severe toxicities, 2 physicians randomly selected from 14 physicians evaluated each toxicity profile and assigned a visual analogue scale score (0-10) based on their impression of the global burden of toxicities. With mixed-effects models, severity scores and a 10-point toxicity burden score (TBS) were derived from 27 predictors accounting for severe (grade 3) and life-threatening (grade 4) toxicities for each organ class of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.
resultsFor most organ classes, grade 3 toxicities had a TBS of 4.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.65-4.63), but infections, cardiovascular events, and pulmonary events had a higher TBS with differences of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.53-1.21), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.51-1.25), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.22-1.24), respectively. Moreover, most grade 4 events had a higher TBS than grade 3 events, except for hemorrhaging, pain, metabolic events, and musculoskeletal events. The intrarater and interrater correlations were 0.91 and 0.59, respectively.
conclusionsThe burden of toxicity grades differs with toxicity types. A TBS provides a toxicity burden summary that incorporates physicians' perspectives and differentiates between severe and life-threatening toxicities and organ classes. Cancer 2018;124:858-64. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.