BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy-induced side effects are often scored retrospectively according to the EORTC/RTOG scores for organs at risk by reviewing the medical records. Some studies could prove an over- or underestimation of side effects as assessed by the medical professionals. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate differences in side effects as described by the doctors and the patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 47 patients with prostate cancer were questioned about their side effects by a radiotherapist and asked to fill in a questionnaire at the start, in the middle and at the end of radiotherapy. The data of this questionnaire and the doctor's report were scored according to the German version of the EORTC/RTOG scores for gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects and subsequently compared. We distinguished between "moderate" disagreement (better/worse by one grade, assessed by the doctor) and "pronounced" disagreement (better/worse by two grades, assessed by the doctor). RESULTS: The number of GI and GU side effects increased during radiotherapy both according to data obtained from the doctor and the patient questionnaire. Comparing doctors' reports with patients' questionnaires, for GI side effects an agreement was found in 22/47 patients, "moderately better" scores by the doctor's report were found in 13/47 patients, and "moderately worse" scores in 9/47 patients on average. "Pronouncedly better and worse" scores were found in 2/47 patients. For GU side effects an agreement was seen in 22/47 patients, "moderately better" scores in 17/47 patients and "moderately worse" scores in 3/47 patients. Regarding GU side effects, only pronouncedly better scores, as assessed by the doctor, were found in a mean of 4/47 patients. If the EORTC/RTOG score is used in its original English version, a difference is found, particularly in the assessment of GU side effects, resulting in an higher amount of agreement concerning GU side effects and a minor amount of "pronounced disagreement". CONCLUSION: In order to evaluate radiation-induced side effects, a patient's self-reported questionnaire should be included in the analysis of morbidity, above all for grade 0, 1, and 2 side effects. The validity of data seems to be questionable, particularly in the assessment of grade 0, 1 and 2 side effects, if only data from the doctors' reports are taken into account. The German version of the EORTC/RTOG score--not including the pretreatment status--leads to different results, particularly in the assessment of grade 0, 1, and 2 urinary side effects, which asks for a revision.
BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy-induced side effects are often scored retrospectively according to the EORTC/RTOG scores for organs at risk by reviewing the medical records. Some studies could prove an over- or underestimation of side effects as assessed by the medical professionals. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate differences in side effects as described by the doctors and the patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 47 patients with prostate cancer were questioned about their side effects by a radiotherapist and asked to fill in a questionnaire at the start, in the middle and at the end of radiotherapy. The data of this questionnaire and the doctor's report were scored according to the German version of the EORTC/RTOG scores for gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) side effects and subsequently compared. We distinguished between "moderate" disagreement (better/worse by one grade, assessed by the doctor) and "pronounced" disagreement (better/worse by two grades, assessed by the doctor). RESULTS: The number of GI and GU side effects increased during radiotherapy both according to data obtained from the doctor and the patient questionnaire. Comparing doctors' reports with patients' questionnaires, for GI side effects an agreement was found in 22/47 patients, "moderately better" scores by the doctor's report were found in 13/47 patients, and "moderately worse" scores in 9/47 patients on average. "Pronouncedly better and worse" scores were found in 2/47 patients. For GU side effects an agreement was seen in 22/47 patients, "moderately better" scores in 17/47 patients and "moderately worse" scores in 3/47 patients. Regarding GU side effects, only pronouncedly better scores, as assessed by the doctor, were found in a mean of 4/47 patients. If the EORTC/RTOG score is used in its original English version, a difference is found, particularly in the assessment of GU side effects, resulting in an higher amount of agreement concerning GU side effects and a minor amount of "pronounced disagreement". CONCLUSION: In order to evaluate radiation-induced side effects, a patient's self-reported questionnaire should be included in the analysis of morbidity, above all for grade 0, 1, and 2 side effects. The validity of data seems to be questionable, particularly in the assessment of grade 0, 1 and 2 side effects, if only data from the doctors' reports are taken into account. The German version of the EORTC/RTOG score--not including the pretreatment status--leads to different results, particularly in the assessment of grade 0, 1, and 2 urinary side effects, which asks for a revision.
Authors: Iftekhar U Ahmad; Jeffrey D Forman; Fazlul H Sarkar; Gilda G Hillman; Elisabeth Heath; Ulka Vaishampayan; Michael L Cher; Fundagul Andic; Peter J Rossi; Omer Kucuk Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Marc D Piroth; Karin Fischedick; Richard Holy; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Barbara Krenkel; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Marc D Piroth; Karin Fischedick; Sandra Nussen; Jens Klotz; Richard Holy; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Panayiotis Mavroidis; Kevin A Pearlstein; John Dooley; Jasmine Sun; Srinivas Saripalli; Shiva K Das; Andrew Z Wang; Ronald C Chen Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 3.481