Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41228252›Full record

ArticleCancers2025

Psychometric Properties and Interpretability of PRO-CTCAE

Minji K Lee, Sandra A Mitchell, Ethan Basch, Allison M Deal, Blake T Langlais, Gita Thanarajasingam, Brenda F Ginos, Lauren Rogak, Tito R Mendoza, Antonia V Bennett and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02158637 (Validation Study of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

NCT02158637 completednot on this map

Validation Study of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

TypeobservationalSponsorMayo ClinicRan2010 to 2017Enrolled1,100ConditionsCancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Minji K LeeDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1301-4319
Sandra A MitchellDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4153-9972
Ethan BaschUniversity of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Allison M DealUniversity of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3526-3938
Blake T LanglaisDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.
Gita ThanarajasingamDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Brenda F GinosDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.
Lauren RogakDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-9430-2256
Tito R MendozaCenter for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Antonia V BennettUniversity of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8968-4511
Brie N NobleDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.
Gina L MazzaDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5305-6193
Amylou C DueckDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9912-1085

Funding

Women's Cancer ProgramP30CA015083 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Lila J. Rutten · 1985 to 2026
$151.3M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800043CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000063CNCI NIH HHS P30 CA015083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe PRO-CTCAE provides patient-reported data on symptomatic AEs. A summary metric-the ACS-reflecting total AE burden can be calculated by averaging AE-level composite scores at a given timepoint for each participant. This study investigated the psychometric properties and interpretability of this PRO-CTCAE ACS in patients with breast, lung, or head/neck cancers.

methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a PRO-CTCAE validation dataset comprising 940 adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02158637). We focused on empirically recommended symptom terms for three cancer sites. Analyses included Spearman's correlations, coefficient alpha, and eigenvalues from the correlation matrices, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and principal component analysis (PCA). Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to assess ACS interpretability in the lung cohort.

resultsMean composite score inter-correlations were moderate (0.30-0.35), and coefficient alphas were high (0.81-0.91). Eigenvalue ratios and CFA supported retention of a single factor/component, with suitable model fit indices. ACS correlated highly with factor scores and the first principal component from the PCA. Reduced sets of terms produced reliable scores that closely approximated the full set scores and aligned with external criteria. LPA in the lung subgroup identified four latent classes; ACS differentiated high vs. low symptom burden groups but did not distinguish the two groups expressing distinct symptom profiles.

conclusionThe ACS demonstrated structural validity through adequately fitting linear factor models and effectively summarized symptomatic AE burden. However, similar ACS values may mask clinically distinct symptomatic AE profiles, underscoring the value of both summary metrics and profile-based approaches.

Indexed as

ACSoverall symptomatic adverse event burdenpsychometric validationtotal adverse event burden

Identifiers

PMID41228252
PMCPMC12606769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.