Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41123546›Full record

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.

Amylou C Dueck, Gita Thanarajasingam, Lauren Rogak, Gina L Mazza, Blake T Langlais, Brie N Noble, Brenda F Ginos, Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Claire I Yee, Minji K Lee and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

13 authors.

Amylou C DueckDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Gita ThanarajasingamDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Lauren RogakDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9430-2256
Gina L MazzaDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Blake T LanglaisDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Brie N NobleDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Brenda F GinosDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Carolyn Mead-HarveyDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Claire I YeeDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Minji K LeeDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Allison M DealLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Eric A MeekDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Ethan BaschLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3813-9318

Funding

Analyzing and Interpreting PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE and Other Clinical Data to Characterize Drug TolerabilityU01CA233046 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BASCH, ETHAN M., DUECK, AMYLOU CONSTANCE · 2018 to 2023
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA233046
6 · The paper itself

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

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansUnited StatesAntineoplastic Agentsadverse eventsdata visualizationshealth‐related quality of lifepatient‐reported outcomessurveyssymptoms

Identifiers

PMID41123546
PMCPMC12542930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.