ReviewCancer2025
Methods for implementing and reporting the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events to measure patient-reported adverse events in cancer clinical trials.
Review in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Toward more accurate adverse event attribution in multiple myeloma clinical trials.Blood cancer journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Locked-Window EQ-5D-5L (Index and VAS) Benchmarking in Sarcoma Care: Rule-Based Traffic-Light Classification Across Two Institutions.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- ProAE: an R package for graphical tools and standardized analysis of patient-reported outcomes and adverse events data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- National Cancer Institute Cancer Treatment Tolerability Consortium: Current status and future directions.Cancer · 2025Article
- Review
- Use of patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events in oncology clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed by the US National Cancer Institute to allow patients to directly report their side effects, enhancing the accuracy and patient-centeredness of cancer clinical trial adverse event reporting. Clinician-based reporting often misses the full range of patient symptoms, resulting in underreporting of side effects. The selection of adverse events for patient reporting must be defined in advance and consistently applied across all study arms. Investigators can use core symptom sets, including diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea, alongside tailored items specific to the treatments being studied. PRO-CTCAE has demonstrated similar scores across electronic, paper-based, and automated telephone administration methods. PRO-CTCAE administration typically occurs before start of treatment and regularly throughout treatment, with the administration frequency tailored to the expected trajectory of side effects. Ensuring high survey completion rates is essential for PRO-CTCAE success. Standard reporting can include tabular reporting of the proportion of patients with any (score ≥1) and high (score ≥3) levels of symptoms at the individual item level. A baseline-adjustment approach should be applied to account for symptoms before start of treatment to isolate treatment-emergent adverse events. The distribution of PRO-CTCAE scores at each time point can be visualized using stacked bar charts. PRO-CTCAE integration into cancer clinical trials is crucial for capturing a comprehensive range of treatment-related symptomatic adverse events and improving the evaluation of therapy tolerability. Ongoing research continues to refine its implementation, supported by regulatory guidance.
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.