Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le1, Zhe Zhang2, Phuoc T Tran1, Theodore L DeWeese1, Daniel Y Song3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Oncology Biostatistics, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: dsong2@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure concordance among genitourinary radiation oncologists in using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading scales to grade rectal bleeding. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 2013 to January 2014, a Web-based survey was sent to 250 American and Canadian academic radiation oncologists who treat prostate cancer. Participants were provided 4 case vignettes in which patients received radiation therapy and developed rectal bleeding and were asked for management plans and to rate the bleeding according to NCI CTC v.4 and RTOG late toxicity grading (scales provided). In 2 cases, participants were also asked whether they would send the patient for colonoscopy. A multilevel, random intercept modeling approach was used to assess sources of variation (case, respondent) in toxicity grading to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement on a dichotomous grading scale (low grades 1-2 vs high grades 3-4) was also assessed, using the κ statistic for multiple respondents. RESULTS: Seventy-two radiation oncologists (28%) completed the survey. Forty-seven (65%) reported having either written or been principal investigator on a study using these scales. Agreement between respondents was moderate (ICC 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.58) when using NCI CTC and fair using the RTOG scale (ICC 0.28, 95% CI 0.20-0.40). Respondents who chose an invasive management were more likely to select a higher toxicity grade (P<.0001). Using the dichotomous scale, we observed moderate agreement (κ = 0.42, 95% CI 0.40-0.44) with the NCI CTC scale, but only slight agreement with the RTOG scale (κ = 0.19, 95% CI 0.17-0.21). CONCLUSION: Low interrater reliability was observed among radiation oncologists grading rectal bleeding using 2 common scales. Clearer definitions of late rectal bleeding toxicity should be constructed to reduce this variability and avoid ambiguity in both reporting and interpretation.
PURPOSE: To measure concordance among genitourinary radiation oncologists in using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading scales to grade rectal bleeding. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 2013 to January 2014, a Web-based survey was sent to 250 American and Canadian academic radiation oncologists who treat prostate cancer. Participants were provided 4 case vignettes in which patients received radiation therapy and developed rectal bleeding and were asked for management plans and to rate the bleeding according to NCI CTC v.4 and RTOG late toxicity grading (scales provided). In 2 cases, participants were also asked whether they would send the patient for colonoscopy. A multilevel, random intercept modeling approach was used to assess sources of variation (case, respondent) in toxicity grading to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement on a dichotomous grading scale (low grades 1-2 vs high grades 3-4) was also assessed, using the κ statistic for multiple respondents. RESULTS: Seventy-two radiation oncologists (28%) completed the survey. Forty-seven (65%) reported having either written or been principal investigator on a study using these scales. Agreement between respondents was moderate (ICC 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.58) when using NCI CTC and fair using the RTOG scale (ICC 0.28, 95% CI 0.20-0.40). Respondents who chose an invasive management were more likely to select a higher toxicity grade (P<.0001). Using the dichotomous scale, we observed moderate agreement (κ = 0.42, 95% CI 0.40-0.44) with the NCI CTC scale, but only slight agreement with the RTOG scale (κ = 0.19, 95% CI 0.17-0.21). CONCLUSION: Low interrater reliability was observed among radiation oncologists grading rectal bleeding using 2 common scales. Clearer definitions of late rectal bleeding toxicity should be constructed to reduce this variability and avoid ambiguity in both reporting and interpretation.
Authors: A Trotti; R Byhardt; J Stetz; C Gwede; B Corn; K Fu; L Gunderson; B McCormick; M Morrisintegral; T Rich; W Shipley; W Curran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jacqueline E Livsey; Jacqueline Routledge; Meriel Burns; Rick Swindell; Susan E Davidson; Richard A Cowan; John P Logue; James P Wylie Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Fabrice Denis; Pascal Garaud; Etienne Bardet; Marc Alfonsi; Christian Sire; Thierry Germain; Philippe Bergerot; Béatrix Rhein; Jacques Tortochaux; Patrick Oudinot; Gilles Calais Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andy Trotti; A Dimitrios Colevas; Ann Setser; Valerie Rusch; David Jaques; Volker Budach; Corey Langer; Barbara Murphy; Richard Cumberlin; C Norman Coleman; Philip Rubin Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Tamara P Miller; Yimei Li; Kelly D Getz; Jesse Dudley; Evanette Burrows; Jeffrey Pennington; Azada Ibrahimova; Brian T Fisher; Rochelle Bagatell; Alix E Seif; Robert Grundmeier; Richard Aplenc Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Mirko Nitsche; Werner Brannath; Matthias Brückner; Dirk Wagner; Alexander Kaltenborn; Nils Temme; Robert M Hermann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Peter Paximadis; Matthew Schipper; Martha Matuszak; Mary Feng; Shruti Jolly; Thomas Boike; Inga Grills; Larry Kestin; Benjamin Movsas; Kent Griffith; Gregory Gustafson; Jean Moran; Teamour Nurushev; Jeffrey Radawski; Lori Pierce; James Hayman Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Tamara P Miller; Yimei Li; Marko Kavcic; Andrea B Troxel; Yuan-Shun V Huang; Lillian Sung; Todd A Alonzo; Robert Gerbing; Matt Hall; Marla H Daves; Terzah M Horton; Michael A Pulsipher; Jessica A Pollard; Rochelle Bagatell; Alix E Seif; Brian T Fisher; Selina Luger; Alan S Gamis; Peter C Adamson; Richard Aplenc Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Li Chen; Ping Bai; Xiangyi Kong; Shaolong Huang; Zhongzhao Wang; Xiangyu Wang; Yi Fang; Jing Wang Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2021-03-30