Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34527820›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2021

An evaluation of concordance between head and neck advanced practice radiation therapist and radiation oncologists in toxicity assessment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

S Y Sin, Melvin L K Chua, Sharon M M Wong, K Sommat, X Y Lin, Y Y Ng, Y L Soong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S Y SinDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Melvin L K ChuaDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Sharon M M WongDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
K SommatDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
X Y LinDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Y Y NgDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Y L SoongDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
National Cancer Centre Singapore · SGNational University of Singapore · SGSingHealth · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeekly toxicity assessments for patients undergoing head and neck (HN) radiotherapy are essential to ensure that acute side effects are appropriately managed in order for patients to complete their treatment in a safe and timely manner. The incorporation of Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) led treatment reviews has been reported for various subsites, but there is currently a lack of published literature regarding this role for patients with HN cancer. The purpose of this study is to assess the concordance of toxicity assessments performed during weekly radiotherapy treatment reviews for patients undergoing HN radiotherapy between the HN APRT and Radiation Oncologist (RO).

methodsTwenty-three patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) under the care of 3 ROs were recruited from June to December 2018; weekly assessments were independently performed by HN APRT and ROs. The HN toxicity assessment was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Advanced Events v4.0. Both assessors were blinded to each other's assessments. The percentage agreement of concordance and agreement level were interpreted by Cohen's Kappa statistic (κ), with the ROs' assessments deemed as the 'gold standard'.

resultsThe overall concordance for all graded toxicity assessments between HN APRT and ROs was 78.4%. Xerostomia, dysgeusia, pharyngeal pain and dermatitis assessment were evaluated as 'Good' with agreement ranging from κ = 0.608-0.640 between the HN APRT and ROs while dysphagia scored an 'Almost Perfect' agreement of κ = 0.834. 'Moderate' agreement between the HN APRT and ROs was observed for oral pain and mucositis assessment. A scoring discrepancy of 1 and 2 grades was observed in 21.2% and 0.4% for these two toxicities.

conclusionThere was high concordance in scoring of acute toxicity between the HN APRT and ROs. The results support the continuing involvement of HN APRT in weekly assessments for NPC patients.

Indexed as

Advanced practice radiation therapistConcordanceHead and neck APRTNPCRadiotherapy side effectsToxicity assessment

Identifiers

PMID34527820
PMCPMC8430423
OpenAlexW3198514580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.