Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
cross_sectional · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 26270597.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2639 and PMC identifier 4857599.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit. Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants' median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P<.05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P<.05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r=0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P≤.006). Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.
Medical subject headings
- Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
- Antineoplastic Agents
- Chemoradiotherapy
- Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
- National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
- Neoplasms
- Radiation Injuries
- Surveys and Questionnaires
- Terminology as Topic