J S Haviland1, P Hopwood2, J Mills2, M Sydenham2, J M Bliss2, J R Yarnold3. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; ICR-CTSU, Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 2. ICR-CTSU, Division of Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 3. Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. Electronic address: john.yarnold@icr.ac.uk.
Abstract
AIMS: In radiotherapy trials, normal tissue effects (NTE) are important end points and it is pertinent to ask whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could replace clinical and/or photographic assessments. Data from the Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials are examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NTEs in the treated breast were recorded by (i) annual clinical assessments, (ii) photographs at 2 and 5 years, (iii) PROMs at 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years after radiotherapy. Hazard ratios for the radiotherapy schedules were compared. Measures of agreement of assessments at 2 and 5 years tested concordance. RESULTS: PROMs were available at 2 and/or 5 years for 1939 women, of whom 1870 had clinical and 1444 had photographic assessments. All methods were sensitive to the dose difference between schedules. Patients reported a higher prevalence for all NTE end points than clinicians or photographs (P < 0.001 for most NTEs). Concordance was generally poor; weighted kappa at 2 years ranged from 0.05 (telangiectasia) to 0.21 (shrinkage and oedema). The percentage agreement was lowest between PROMs and photographic assessments of change in breast appearance (38%). CONCLUSIONS: All three methods produced similar conclusions for the comparison of trial schedules, despite low concordance between the methods on an individual patient basis. Careful consideration should be given to the different contributions of the measures of NTE in future radiotherapy trials.
AIMS: In radiotherapy trials, normal tissue effects (NTE) are important end points and it is pertinent to ask whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could replace clinical and/or photographic assessments. Data from the Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials are examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NTEs in the treated breast were recorded by (i) annual clinical assessments, (ii) photographs at 2 and 5 years, (iii) PROMs at 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years after radiotherapy. Hazard ratios for the radiotherapy schedules were compared. Measures of agreement of assessments at 2 and 5 years tested concordance. RESULTS: PROMs were available at 2 and/or 5 years for 1939 women, of whom 1870 had clinical and 1444 had photographic assessments. All methods were sensitive to the dose difference between schedules. Patients reported a higher prevalence for all NTE end points than clinicians or photographs (P < 0.001 for most NTEs). Concordance was generally poor; weighted kappa at 2 years ranged from 0.05 (telangiectasia) to 0.21 (shrinkage and oedema). The percentage agreement was lowest between PROMs and photographic assessments of change in breast appearance (38%). CONCLUSIONS: All three methods produced similar conclusions for the comparison of trial schedules, despite low concordance between the methods on an individual patient basis. Careful consideration should be given to the different contributions of the measures of NTE in future radiotherapy trials.
Authors: Cheryl Duzenli; Elisa K Chan; Alanah M Bergman; Sheri Grahame; Joel Singer; Levi Burns; Robert A Olson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Marie-Louise Möllerberg; Ulrica Langegård; Birgitta Johansson; Emma Ohlsson-Nevo; Per Fransson; Karin Ahlberg; Petra Witt-Nyström; Katarina Sjövall Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-06-19
Authors: Charlotte E Coles; Clare L Griffin; Anna M Kirby; Jenny Titley; Rajiv K Agrawal; Abdulla Alhasso; Indrani S Bhattacharya; Adrian M Brunt; Laura Ciurlionis; Charlie Chan; Ellen M Donovan; Marie A Emson; Adrian N Harnett; Joanne S Haviland; Penelope Hopwood; Monica L Jefford; Ronald Kaggwa; Elinor J Sawyer; Isabel Syndikus; Yat M Tsang; Duncan A Wheatley; Maggie Wilcox; John R Yarnold; Judith M Bliss Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Emily Lam; Caitlin Yee; Gina Wong; Marko Popovic; Leah Drost; Kucy Pon; Danny Vesprini; Henry Lam; Saleh Aljabri; Hany Soliman; Carlo DeAngelis; Edward Chow Journal: Breast Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Indrani S Bhattacharya; Joanne S Haviland; Penelope Hopwood; Charlotte E Coles; John R Yarnold; Judith M Bliss; Anna M Kirby Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Indrani S Bhattacharya; Joanne S Haviland; Carola Perotti; David Eaton; Sarah Gulliford; Emma Harris; Charlotte E Coles; Cliona C Kirwan; Judith M Bliss; Anna M Kirby Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-04-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: D B Raphael; N S Russell; J M Immink; P G Westhoff; M C Stenfert Kroese; M R Stam; L M van Maurik; H J G D van den Bongard; J H Maduro; M G A Sattler; T van der Weijden; L J Boersma Journal: Breast Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Constanze Elfgen; U Güth; G Gruber; S Birrer; V Bjelic-Radisic; M Fleisch; C J Tausch Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.239