BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) reporting system is widely used by clinicians to measure patient symptoms in clinical trials. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) enables cancer patients to rate their symptoms related to their quality of life. We examined the extent to which patient and clinician symptom scoring and their agreement could contribute to the estimation of overall survival among cancer patients. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data regarding six cancer symptoms (pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, and constipation) from a total of 2279 cancer patients from 14 closed EORTC randomized controlled trials. In each trial that was selected for retrospective pooled analysis, both clinician and patient symptom scoring were reported simultaneously at study entry. We assessed the extent of agreement between clinician vs patient symptom scoring using the Spearman and kappa correlation statistics. After adjusting for age, sex, performance status, cancer severity, and cancer site, we used Harrell concordance index (C-index) to compare the potential for clinician-reported and/or patient-reported symptom scores to improve the accuracy of Cox models to predict overall survival. All P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS: Patient-reported scores for some symptoms, particularly fatigue, did differ from clinician-reported scores. For each of the six symptoms that we assessed at baseline, both clinician and patient scorings contributed independently and positively to the predictive accuracy of survival prognostication. Cox models of overall survival that considered both patient and clinician scores gained more predictive accuracy than models that considered clinician scores alone for each of four symptoms: fatigue (C-index = .67 with both patient and clinician data vs C-index = .63 with clinician data only; P <.001), vomiting (C-index = .64 vs .62; P = .01), nausea (C-index = .65 vs .62; P < .001), and constipation (C-index = .62 vs .61; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Patients provide a subjective measure of symptom severity that complements clinician scoring in predicting overall survival.
BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) reporting system is widely used by clinicians to measure patient symptoms in clinical trials. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) enables cancerpatients to rate their symptoms related to their quality of life. We examined the extent to which patient and clinician symptom scoring and their agreement could contribute to the estimation of overall survival among cancerpatients. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data regarding six cancer symptoms (pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, and constipation) from a total of 2279 cancerpatients from 14 closed EORTC randomized controlled trials. In each trial that was selected for retrospective pooled analysis, both clinician and patient symptom scoring were reported simultaneously at study entry. We assessed the extent of agreement between clinician vs patient symptom scoring using the Spearman and kappa correlation statistics. After adjusting for age, sex, performance status, cancer severity, and cancer site, we used Harrell concordance index (C-index) to compare the potential for clinician-reported and/or patient-reported symptom scores to improve the accuracy of Cox models to predict overall survival. All P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS:Patient-reported scores for some symptoms, particularly fatigue, did differ from clinician-reported scores. For each of the six symptoms that we assessed at baseline, both clinician and patient scorings contributed independently and positively to the predictive accuracy of survival prognostication. Cox models of overall survival that considered both patient and clinician scores gained more predictive accuracy than models that considered clinician scores alone for each of four symptoms: fatigue (C-index = .67 with both patient and clinician data vs C-index = .63 with clinician data only; P <.001), vomiting (C-index = .64 vs .62; P = .01), nausea (C-index = .65 vs .62; P < .001), and constipation (C-index = .62 vs .61; P = .01). CONCLUSION:Patients provide a subjective measure of symptom severity that complements clinician scoring in predicting overall survival.
Authors: Fabio Efficace; Andrew Bottomley; Corneel Coens; Kristel Van Steen; Thierry Conroy; Patrick Schöffski; Hans Schmoll; Eric Van Cutsem; Claus-Henning Köhne Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-11-18 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: K Bjordal; A de Graeff; P M Fayers; E Hammerlid; C van Pottelsberghe; D Curran; M Ahlner-Elmqvist; E J Maher; J W Meyza; A Brédart; A L Söderholm; J J Arraras; J S Feine; H Abendstein; R P Morton; T Pignon; P Huguenin; A Bottomly; S Kaasa Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Elfriede R Greimel; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Jacobus Pfisterer; Felix Hilpert; Fedor Daghofer; Eric Pujade-Lauraine; Andreas du Bois Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Amylou C Dueck; Tito R Mendoza; Sandra A Mitchell; Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen M Castro; Lauren J Rogak; Thomas M Atkinson; Antonia V Bennett; Andrea M Denicoff; Ann M O'Mara; Yuelin Li; Steven B Clauser; Donna M Bryant; James D Bearden; Theresa A Gillis; Jay K Harness; Robert D Siegel; Diane B Paul; Charles S Cleeland; Deborah Schrag; Jeff A Sloan; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah W Bruner; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Andreas Hinz; Joachim Weis; Hermann Faller; Elmar Brähler; Martin Härter; Monika Keller; Holger Schulz; Karl Wegscheider; Uwe Koch; Kristina Geue; Heide Götze; Anja Mehnert Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ethan Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Steven B Clauser; Lori M Minasian; Amylou C Dueck; Tito R Mendoza; Jennifer Hay; Thomas M Atkinson; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah W Bruner; Charles S Cleeland; Jeff A Sloan; Ram Chilukuri; Paul Baumgartner; Andrea Denicoff; Diane St Germain; Ann M O'Mara; Alice Chen; Joseph Kelaghan; Antonia V Bennett; Laura Sit; Lauren Rogak; Allison Barz; Diane B Paul; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anamaria R Yeung; Stephanie L Pugh; Ann H Klopp; Karen M Gil; Lari Wenzel; Shannon N Westin; David K Gaffney; William Small; Spencer Thompson; Desiree E Doncals; Guilherme H C Cantuaria; Brian P Yaremko; Amy Chang; Vijayananda Kundapur; Dasarahally S Mohan; Michael L Haas; Yong Bae Kim; Catherine L Ferguson; Snehal Deshmukh; Deborah W Bruner; Lisa A Kachnic Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stefan Stefanovic; Markus Wallwiener; Uros Karic; Christoph Domschke; Luka Katic; Florin-Andrei Taran; Aleksandra Pesic; Andreas Hartkopf; Peyman Hadji; Martin Teufel; Florian Schuetz; Christof Sohn; Peter Fasching; Andreas Schneeweiss; Sara Brucker Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Angeles A Secord; Robert L Coleman; Laura J Havrilesky; Amy P Abernethy; Gregory P Samsa; David Cella Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Jinbo Yue; Qiuling Shi; Ting Xu; Melenda Jeter; Ting-Yu Chen; Ritsuko Komaki; Daniel R Gomez; Tinsu Pan; Charles S Cleeland; Zhongxing Liao; Xin Shelley Wang Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 4.147