Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32700029›Full record

ArticleOncology and therapy2018

Routine Surveillance of Chemotherapy Toxicities in Cancer Patients Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

Tian Qi Wang, Joseph N Samuel, M Catherine Brown, Ashlee Vennettilli, Hannah Solomon, Lawson Eng, Mindy Liang, Gursharan Gill, Zahra Merali, Chenchen Tian and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Improving Practice in a Head and Neck Oncology Clinic Using the PRO-CTCAE Tool.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Tian Qi WangPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joseph N SamuelPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
M Catherine BrownPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ashlee VennettilliPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Hannah SolomonPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lawson EngPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mindy LiangPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Gursharan GillPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Zahra MeraliPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Chenchen TianPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Nicholas Y H ChengPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Matthew CampbellSackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Devalben PatelPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ai Xin LiuPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Geoffrey LiuPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada. Geoffrey.Liu@uhn.on.ca.
Doris HowellPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSystematic documentation of chemotoxicities in outpatient clinics is challenging. Incorporating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical workflows can be an efficient strategy to strengthen the assessment of symptomatic treatment toxicities in oncology clinical practice. We compared the adequateness, feasibility, and acceptability of toxicity documentation using systematic, prospective, application of the PRO Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) tool.

methodsAt a comprehensive cancer center, data abstraction of electronic health record reviews elucidated current methods and degree of chemotoxicity documentation. Web-based 32-item PRO-CTCAE questionnaires, administered in ambulatory clinics of patients receiving chemotherapy, captured chemotoxicities and respective severities. Patient telephone surveys assessed whether healthcare providers had addressed chemotoxicities to the patients' satisfaction.

resultsOver a broad demographic of 497 patients receiving chemotherapy, 90% (95% CI 84-96%) with significant chemotoxicities (n = 107) reported that their providers had discussed toxicities with them; of these, 70% received a therapy management change, while among the rest, 17% desired a change in management. Of patients surveyed, 91% (95% CI 82-99%) were satisfied with their current chemotoxicity management. Clinician chart documentation varied greatly; descriptors rather than numerical grading scales were typically used. Although 93% of patients were willing to complete the PRO survey, only 50% thought that it would be acceptable to complete this survey at routine clinic visits.

conclusionUse of PRO-CTCAE in routine clinical practice promotes systematic evaluation of symptomatic toxicities and improves the clarity, consistency, and efficiency of clinician documentation; however, methods to improve patient willingness to complete this tool routinely are needed.

Indexed as

CancerChemotoxicityPatient reported outcomePRO-CTCAESide-effects monitoring

Identifiers

PMID32700029
PMCPMC7360011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.