Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36652781›Full record

ReviewESMO open2023

Selecting a PRO-CTCAE-based subset for patient-reported symptom monitoring in prostate cancer patients: a modified Delphi procedure.

E Feldman, F J Pos, R J Smeenk, H van der Poel, P van Leeuwen, J M de Feijter, M Hulshof, T Budiharto, R Hermens, K M de Ligt and 1 more

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ESMO open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Using a modified Delphi procedure to select a PRO-CTCAE-based subset for patient-reported symptomatic toxicity monitoring in rectal cancer patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

11 authors.

E FeldmanDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen.
F J PosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam.
R J SmeenkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen.
H van der PoelDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam; Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam.
P van LeeuwenDepartment of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam.
J M de FeijterDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam.
M HulshofDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Academical Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
T BudihartoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven.
R HermensScientific Institute for Quality in Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
K M de LigtDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
I WalravenDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen. Electronic address: iris.walraven@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinician-based reporting of adverse events leads to underreporting and underestimation of the impact of adverse events on prostate cancer patients. Therefore, interest has grown in capturing adverse events directly from patients using the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). We aimed to develop a standardized PRO-CTCAE subset tailored to adverse event monitoring in prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe used a mixed-method approach based on the 'phase I guideline for developing questionnaire modules' by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life group, including a literature review, and interviews with patients (n = 30) and health care providers (HCPs, n = 16). A modified Delphi procedure was carried out to reach consensus on the final subset selected from the complete PRO-CTCAE item library.

resultsFourteen multidisciplinary HCPs and 12 patients participated in the Delphi rounds. Ninety percent agreed on the final subset, consisting of: 'ability to achieve and maintain erection', 'decreased libido', 'inability to reach orgasm', 'urinary frequency', 'urinary urgency', 'urinary incontinence', 'painful urination', 'fecal incontinence', 'fatigue', 'hot flashes', 'feeling discouraged', 'sadness', and 'concentration'. From 16 articles identified in the literature review, the following adverse events for which no PRO-CTCAE items are available, were included to the recommendation section: 'nocturia', 'blood and/or mucus in stool', 'hemorrhoids', 'hematuria', 'cystitis', 'neuropathy', and 'proctitis'.

conclusionsThe obtained PRO-CTCAE-subset can be used for multidisciplinary adverse event monitoring in prostate cancer care. The described method may guide development of future PRO-CTCAE subsets.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsProstatic NeoplasmsAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAntineoplastic Agentsadverse effectspatient-reported outcomesprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID36652781
PMCPMC10024147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read41
identifiers read5
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.