PURPOSE: Considerable interobserver variability exists among providers and between providers and patients when measuring subjective symptoms. In the recently published Phase III N06C4 trial of mometasone cream vs. placebo to prevent radiation dermatitis, the primary provider-assessed (PA) endpoint, using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), was negative. However, prospectively planned secondary analyses of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), using the Skindex-16 and Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool (STAT), were positive. This study assesses the relationship between PA outcomes and PROs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to compare the three tools. Statistical correlations were defined as follows: <0.5, mild; 0.5-0.7, moderate; and >0.7, strong. RESULTS: CTCAE dermatitis moderately correlated with STAT erythema, and CTCAE pruritus strongly correlated with STAT itching. CTCAE pruritus had a moderate correlation with Skindex-16 itching. Comparing the 2 PRO tools, Skindex-16 itching correlated moderately with STAT itching. Skindex-16 burning, hurting, irritation, and persistence all showed the strongest correlation with STAT burning; they showed moderate correlations with STAT itching and tenderness. CONCLUSIONS: The PRO Skindex-16 correlated well with the PRO portions of STAT, but neither tool correlated well with CTCAE. PROs delineated a wider spectrum of toxicity than PA measures and provided more information on rash, redness, pruritus, and annoyance measures compared with CTCAE findings of rash and pruritus. PROs may provide a more complete measure of patient experience than single-symptom, PA endpoints in clinical trials assessing radiation skin toxicity.
PURPOSE: Considerable interobserver variability exists among providers and between providers and patients when measuring subjective symptoms. In the recently published Phase III N06C4 trial of mometasone cream vs. placebo to prevent radiation dermatitis, the primary provider-assessed (PA) endpoint, using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), was negative. However, prospectively planned secondary analyses of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), using the Skindex-16 and Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool (STAT), were positive. This study assesses the relationship between PA outcomes and PROs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to compare the three tools. Statistical correlations were defined as follows: <0.5, mild; 0.5-0.7, moderate; and >0.7, strong. RESULTS: CTCAE dermatitis moderately correlated with STAT erythema, and CTCAE pruritus strongly correlated with STAT itching. CTCAE pruritus had a moderate correlation with Skindex-16 itching. Comparing the 2 PRO tools, Skindex-16 itching correlated moderately with STAT itching. Skindex-16 burning, hurting, irritation, and persistence all showed the strongest correlation with STAT burning; they showed moderate correlations with STAT itching and tenderness. CONCLUSIONS: The PRO Skindex-16 correlated well with the PRO portions of STAT, but neither tool correlated well with CTCAE. PROs delineated a wider spectrum of toxicity than PA measures and provided more information on rash, redness, pruritus, and annoyance measures compared with CTCAE findings of rash and pruritus. PROs may provide a more complete measure of patient experience than single-symptom, PA endpoints in clinical trials assessing radiation skin toxicity.
Authors: Thomas E Witzig; Peter T Silberstein; Charles L Loprinzi; Jeff A Sloan; Paul J Novotny; James A Mailliard; Kendrith M Rowland; Steven R Alberts; James E Krook; Ralph Levitt; Roscoe F Morton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Juliane Bingener; Jeff A Sloan; Drew K Seisler; Andrea L McConico; Pamela E Skaran; David R Farley; Mark J Truty Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Pamela J Atherton; Kelli N Burger; Charles L Loprinzi; Michelle A Neben Wittich; Robert C Miller; Aminah Jatoi; Jeff A Sloan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tara Behroozian; Lauren T Milton; Neil H Shear; Erin McKenzie; Yasmeen Razvi; Irene Karam; Kucy Pon; Henry Lam; Emily Lam; Edward Chow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tito R Mendoza; Fengmin Zhao; Charles S Cleeland; Lynne I Wagner; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Michael J Fisch Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Sean J Ryan; Antonia V Bennett; Angela M Stover; Rebecca M Saracino; Lauren J Rogak; Sarah T Jewell; Konstantina Matsoukas; Yuelin Li; Ethan Basch Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Terence T Sio; Pamela J Atherton; Brandon J Birckhead; David J Schwartz; Jeff A Sloan; Drew K Seisler; James A Martenson; Charles L Loprinzi; Patricia C Griffin; Roscoe F Morton; Jon C Anders; Thomas J Stoffel; Robert E Haselow; Rex B Mowat; Michelle A Neben Wittich; James D Bearden; Robert C Miller Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 3.603