ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2017
A prospective comparison of common toxicity criteria adverse events Version 3 and 4 in assessing oral mucositis for oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erythromycin: an alternative for the management of oral mucositis?Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2022Review
- Unintended consequences of evolution of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2019Article
- A comparative study on erlotinib & gefitinib therapy in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients.The Indian journal of medical research · 2019Article
- Assessing Novel Drugs and Radiation Technology in the Chemoradiation of Oropharyngeal Cancer.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeOral mucositis is an expected complication of radiotherapy in the management of carcinoma of the head and neck. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 3 (V3) and related systems based on mucosal appearance have been used in clinical trials historically. More recently, Version 4 (V4) which is based on patient symptoms has been employed. This study compares the use of V3 and V4 in the grading of mucositis in patients undergoing radiotherapy with or without concurrent systemic therapy for carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx.
methodsOral mucositis was graded prospectively in patients receiving radiotherapy with or without concurrent systemic therapy using both V3 and V4. Grading was recorded during and after completion of therapy.
resultsBetween November 2014 and November 2015, 555 measurements were taken from 73 patients. Mucositis scores were equal in both versions in 327 (59%) measurements. Significant differences between V3 and V4 were seen in patients receiving cetuximab-based concurrent therapy (
conclusionDifferences in grading of mucositis scored by V3 and V4 are frequent. Relationships between biologically effective dose and rates of grade 3 mucositis have historically been based on mucosal appearances. It is not known whether the same relationships apply when mucositis is graded based on symptomatic grading systems. Both V3 and V4 should be used in clinical trials to improve understanding of mucositis and its relationship to quality of life and late mucosal toxicity.
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.