BACKGROUND: Reporting ototoxicity is frequently complicated by use of various ototoxicity criteria. The International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) ototoxicity grading scale was recently proposed for standardized use in reporting hearing loss outcomes across institutions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity grading scales. Differences between the two scales were identified and the implications these differences may have in the clinical setting were discussed. PROCEDURES: Audiological evaluations were reviewed for 379 patients with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma (ages 3-21 years). Each patient was enrolled on one of two St. Jude clinical protocols that included craniospinal radiation therapy and four courses of 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin chemotherapy. The latest audiogram conducted 5.5-24.5 months post-protocol treatment initiation was graded using the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity criteria. Clinically significant hearing loss was defined as Chang grade ≥2a and SIOP ≥2. Hearing loss was considered serious (requiring a hearing aid) at the level of Chang grade ≥2b and SIOP ≥3. RESULTS: A strong concordance was observed between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity scales (Stuart's tau-c statistic = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.91). Among those patients diagnosed with serious hearing loss, the two scales were in good agreement. However, the scales deviated from one another in classifying patients with less serious or no hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: Although discrepancies between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity scales exist primarily for patients with no or minimal hearing loss, the scales share a strong concordance overall.
BACKGROUND: Reporting ototoxicity is frequently complicated by use of various ototoxicity criteria. The International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) ototoxicity grading scale was recently proposed for standardized use in reporting hearing loss outcomes across institutions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity grading scales. Differences between the two scales were identified and the implications these differences may have in the clinical setting were discussed. PROCEDURES: Audiological evaluations were reviewed for 379 patients with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma (ages 3-21 years). Each patient was enrolled on one of two St. Jude clinical protocols that included craniospinal radiation therapy and four courses of 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin chemotherapy. The latest audiogram conducted 5.5-24.5 months post-protocol treatment initiation was graded using the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity criteria. Clinically significant hearing loss was defined as Chang grade ≥2a and SIOP ≥2. Hearing loss was considered serious (requiring a hearing aid) at the level of Chang grade ≥2b and SIOP ≥3. RESULTS: A strong concordance was observed between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity scales (Stuart's tau-c statistic = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.91). Among those patients diagnosed with serious hearing loss, the two scales were in good agreement. However, the scales deviated from one another in classifying patients with less serious or no hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: Although discrepancies between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity scales exist primarily for patients with no or minimal hearing loss, the scales share a strong concordance overall.
Authors: Penelope R Brock; Kristin R Knight; David R Freyer; Kathleen C M Campbell; Peter S Steyger; Brian W Blakley; Shahrad R Rassekh; Kay W Chang; Brian J Fligor; Kaukab Rajput; Michael Sullivan; Edward A Neuwelt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patricia G Stelmachowicz; Andrea L Pittman; Brenda M Hoover; Dawna E Lewis; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2004-05
Authors: Heng Xu; Giles W Robinson; Jie Huang; Joshua Yew-Suang Lim; Hui Zhang; Johnnie K Bass; Alberto Broniscer; Murali Chintagumpala; Ute Bartels; Sri Gururangan; Tim Hassall; Michael Fisher; Richard Cohn; Tetsuji Yamashita; Tal Teitz; Jian Zuo; Arzu Onar-Thomas; Amar Gajjar; Clinton F Stewart; Jun J Yang Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Johnnie K Bass; Kristin R Knight; Torunn I Yock; Kay W Chang; Douglas Cipkala; Satkiran S Grewal Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Meghan Phelan; Susan S Hayashi; Kara Sauerburger; Jennifer Henry; Ningying Wu; Robert J Hayashi Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Amber Khan; Nidha Mubdi; Amy Budnick; Darren R Feldman; Sharon W Williams; Seema Patel; Emily S Tonorezos Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eva Clemens; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Renée L Mulder; Leontien C M Kremer; Melissa M Hudson; Roderick Skinner; Louis S Constine; Johnnie K Bass; Claudia E Kuehni; Thorsten Langer; Elvira C van Dalen; Edith Bardi; Nicolas-Xavier Bonne; Penelope R Brock; Beth Brooks; Bruce Carleton; Eric Caron; Kay W Chang; Karen Johnston; Kristin Knight; Paul C Nathan; Etan Orgel; Pinki K Prasad; Jan Rottenberg; Katrin Scheinemann; Andrica C H de Vries; Thomas Walwyn; Annette Weiss; Antoinette Am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen; Richard J Cohn; Wendy Landier Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 54.433
Authors: Miranda L Camet; Anne Spence; Susan S Hayashi; Ningying Wu; Jennifer Henry; Kara Sauerburger; Robert J Hayashi Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 6.244