Trial reportJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024
Assessing tolerability with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy item GP5: psychometric evidence from LIBRETTO-531, a phase 3 trial of selpercatinib in medullary thyroid cancer.
Trial report in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04211337 (A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label, Phase 3 Trial Comparing Selpercatinib to Physicians Choice of Cabozantinib or Vandetanib in Patients With Progressive, Advanced, Kinase Inhibitor Naïve, RET-Mutant Medullary Thyroid Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label, Phase 3 Trial Comparing Selpercatinib to Physicians Choice of Cabozantinib or Vandetanib in Patients With Progressive, Advanced, Kinase Inhibitor Naïve, RET-Mutant Medullary Thyroid Cancer (LIBRETTO-531)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC): A Systematic Review.Oncology and therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis psychometric analysis generated evidence to support the use of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy item GP5 (GP5) as a measure of tolerability and confirms the appropriateness of categorizing "high side-effect burden" using a rating of 3 or 4 (score ranges 0-4) in patients with advanced/metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). METHODOLOGY: Blinded, pooled interim data from the safety population (n=290) enrolled in the phase 3 LIBRETTO-531 trial (NCT04211337) were used. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for test-retest reliability using data from cycles 1-2 post-baseline. Construct validity was evaluated by examining the correlations of GP5 ratings with (a) symptomatic adverse events (AEs; measured by the PRO-CTCAE), and (b) functioning scores of EORTC QLQ-C30. The ability to detect change over time was examined by Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel tests for GP5 ratings and PRO-CTCAE. The relationship of "high side-effect burden" categories with QLQ-C30 functioning scores was examined.
resultsICCs for the GP5 ratings after cycle 1 ranged between 0.80 and 0.85, indicating good reliability. Correlations between GP5 and PRO-CTCAE items ranged from 0.18 to 0.62 and ranged from -0.37 to -0.50 for QLQ-C30 functioning scores, consistent with study assumptions. Post-baseline GP5 ratings showed significant associations with PRO-CTCAE scores (p<0.001). Participants with GP5 ratings of 3 or 4 had worse physical function than those with GP5 ratings of 0 to 2 (p<0.0001).
conclusionsThis analysis generated evidence supportive of the psychometric properties of the GP5 as a fit-for-purpose measure to assess treatment tolerability in patients with advanced/metastatic MTC. The definition of "high side-effect burden" was associated with the clinical feature of tolerability.
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.