Trial reportJNCI cancer spectrum2025
Feasibility of frequent monitoring of symptoms using the PRO-CTCAE in the NRG-BR004 clinical trial.
Trial report in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03199885 (A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial of Taxane/Trastuzumab/Pertuzumab With Atezolizumab or Placebo in First-Line HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast 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 Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial of Taxane/Trastuzumab/Pertuzumab With Atezolizumab or Placebo in First-Line HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of patient-reported outcome item libraries in cancer research: an EORTC Quality of Life Group study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Development and validation of a customised PRO-CTCAE scale for adult-type diffuse gliomas (VERONICA): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study in China.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring using patients' own smartphones in outpatient cancer chemotherapy: the SMART-PRO study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe PRO-CTCAE Measurement System was designed to enhance the quality of the standard toxicity evaluation in clinical trials. We developed a substudy within NRG-BR004, a phase III clinical trial in patients with newly documented HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), to examine the added value and feasibility of frequent PRO-CTCAE data collection.
methodsPatients were asked to complete 23 PRO-CTCAE items assessing 12 symptoms. Electronic PRO (ePRO) reporting was preferred; however, paper administration was allowed. The data on items assessed before treatment initiation, then weekly during Cycles 1-2 (12 weeks), are presented herein. Feasibility of frequent assessment with ePRO reporting was assessed using these data and was predefined as ≥25% of patients being compliant (submitted ≥75% of scheduled assessments). We also examined PRO-CTCAE and clinician-reported CTCAE data for key symptoms using maximum toxicity grade and the toxicity index (TI).
resultsOverall, 80% of patients (82 of 103) were compliant with expected weekly assessments (90% CI = 0.72 to 0.86). For all symptoms, the median maximum grade (TI value) of clinician-reported CTCAE was lower than the median maximum score (TI value) of patient-reported PRO-CTCAE. The differences in the data trend for weekly vs less frequent assessment were more apparent when data were evaluated using the TI vs the maximum score.
conclusionsWeekly assessments within the first two chemotherapy cycles were feasible in this trial of MBC patients. As expected, patients reported greater severity of symptoms than clinicians. Demonstrating the feasibility of frequent assessment could have implications for future research and clinical practice. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT03199885 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03199885).
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.