Observational studyJournal of medical radiation sciences2022
Acute toxicity and patient-reported outcomes in anal canal cancer: results of a pilot study.
Observational study in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnal canal cancer (ACC) is uncommon. The gold standard of care is chemoradiotherapy treatment. However, this treatment is associated with considerable acute and late side effects. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate acute toxicity and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in these patients from planning to 3 months after treatment.
methodsSixteen patients were recruited to this prospective observational study from March 2015 to December 2017. All patients received volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in 30#. Toxicity data were graded by a Radiation Oncologist using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) version 4 at planning, weekly during treatment, 6-week and 3-month post-treatment. PRO data were collected using the EORTC QLQ C30 and CR29 questionnaires completed by patients at planning, mid and end treatment and 3-month post-treatment.
resultsThe majority of toxicity and PRO items peaked in severity at the end of treatment (week 6). Skin was the only item where >50% of patients had ≥ grade 2 toxicity at any point with 75% having ≥ grade 2 at week 6. Patient-reported embarrassment significantly increased over time (P < 0.001). No meaningful relationships were found between PRO and CTCAE results.
conclusionAfter reaching their maximum severity at the end of treatment, the majority of toxicity and PRO items approached baseline levels by 3-month post-treatment. The results of this study suggest that PROs are an important complementary tool to CTCAE and provide greater understanding of patients' perception of treatment side effects.
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.