Evidence Hub

Feasibility of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events via the PRO-CTCAE in a Chemoradiotherapy Cooperative Group Multicenter Clinical Trial

E. Basch, S. Pugh, A. Dueck, S. Mitchell, L. Berk, S. Fogh, L. Rogak, Marcha L. Gatewood et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2017

152 participants · 105 citations

Abstract

Purpose To assess the feasibility of measuring symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in a multicenter clinical trial using the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Methods and Materials Patients enrolled in Trial XXXX (XXXX) were asked to self-report 53 PRO-CTCAE items representing 30 symptomatic AEs at 6 time points (baseline; weekly x4 during treatment; 12-weeks post-treatment). Reporting was conducted via wireless tablet computers in clinic waiting areas. Compliance was defined as the proportion of visits when an expected PRO-CTCAE assessment was completed. Results Among 226 study sites participating in Trial XXXX, 100% completed 35-minute PRO-CTCAE training for clinical research associates (CRAs); 80 sites enrolled patients of which 34 (43%) required tablet computers to be provided. All 152 patients in Trial XXXX agreed to self-report using the PRO-CTCAE (median age 66; 47% female; 84% white). Median time for CRAs to learn the system was 60 minutes (range 30–240), and median time for CRAs to teach a patient to self-report was 10 minutes (range 2–60). Compliance was high, particularly during active treatment when patients self-reported at 86% of expected time points, although compliance was lower post-treatment (72%). Common reasons for non-compliance were institutional errors such as forgetting to provide computers to participants; patients missing clinic visits; internet connectivity;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 152 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free