Patricia Holch1, Ann M Henry2, Susan Davidson3, Alexandra Gilbert4, Jacqueline Routledge3, Leanne Shearsmith4, Kevin Franks5, Emma Ingleson4, Abigail Albutt4, Galina Velikova4. 1. Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK; Patient Reported Outcomes Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer Studies and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's Hospital, Leeds, UK. Electronic address: T.Holch@Leedsbeckett.ac.uk. 2. Patient Reported Outcomes Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer Studies and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's Hospital, Leeds, UK; Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's Institute of Oncology, St James's Hospital, Leeds, UK. 3. The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 4. Patient Reported Outcomes Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer Studies and Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's Hospital, Leeds, UK. 5. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James's Institute of Oncology, St James's Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review aimed to determine the clinician and patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments currently usedin randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radical radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer to report acute and late adverse events (AEs), review the quality of methodology and PRO reporting, and report the prevalence of acute and late AEs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched between April and August 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the PRO Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In all, 1149 records were screened, and 21 articles were included in the final review. RESULTS: We determined the acute and late AEs for 9040 patients enrolled in 15 different RCTs. Only clinician reported instruments were used to report acute AEs <3 months (eg, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]). For late clinician reporting, the Late Effects on Normal Tissues-Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic scale and RTOG were used and were often augmented with additional items to provide comprehensive coverage of sexual functioning and anorectal symptoms. Some late AEs were reported (48% articles) using PROs (eg, ULCA-PCI [University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index], FACT-G and P [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General & Prostate Module], EORTC QLQC-30 + PR25 [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire & Prostate Module]); however, a definitive "preferred" instrument was not evident. DISCUSSION: Our findings are at odds with recent movements toward including patient voices in reporting of AEs and patient engagement in clinical research. We recommend including PRO to evaluate radical radiation therapy before, during, and after the treatment to fully capture patient experiences, and we support the development of predictive models for late effects based on the severity of early toxicity. CONCLUSION: Patient reporting of acute and late AEs is underrepresented in radiation therapy trials. We recommend working toward a consistent approach to PRO assessment of radiation therapy-related AEs.
PURPOSE: This review aimed to determine the clinician and patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments currently usedin randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radical radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer to report acute and late adverse events (AEs), review the quality of methodology and PRO reporting, and report the prevalence of acute and late AEs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched between April and August 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the PRO Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In all, 1149 records were screened, and 21 articles were included in the final review. RESULTS: We determined the acute and late AEs for 9040 patients enrolled in 15 different RCTs. Only clinician reported instruments were used to report acute AEs <3 months (eg, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]). For late clinician reporting, the Late Effects on Normal Tissues-Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic scale and RTOG were used and were often augmented with additional items to provide comprehensive coverage of sexual functioning and anorectal symptoms. Some late AEs were reported (48% articles) using PROs (eg, ULCA-PCI [University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index], FACT-G and P [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General & Prostate Module], EORTC QLQC-30 + PR25 [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire & Prostate Module]); however, a definitive "preferred" instrument was not evident. DISCUSSION: Our findings are at odds with recent movements toward including patient voices in reporting of AEs and patient engagement in clinical research. We recommend including PRO to evaluate radical radiation therapy before, during, and after the treatment to fully capture patient experiences, and we support the development of predictive models for late effects based on the severity of early toxicity. CONCLUSION:Patient reporting of acute and late AEs is underrepresented in radiation therapy trials. We recommend working toward a consistent approach to PRO assessment of radiation therapy-related AEs.
Authors: Karen M Gil; Stephanie L Pugh; Ann H Klopp; Anamaria R Yeung; 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; Lisa A Kachnic; Deborah W Bruner Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Miguel Reis Ferreira; Atia Khan; Karen Thomas; Lesley Truelove; Helen McNair; Annie Gao; Chris C Parker; Robert Huddart; Margaret Bidmead; Ros Eeles; Vincent Khoo; Nicholas J van As; Vibeke N Hansen; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M R Ferreira; K Thomas; L Truelove; A Khan; C Parker; D P Dearnaley; S Gulliford Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: David Dearnaley; Clare L Griffin; Rebecca Lewis; Philip Mayles; Helen Mayles; Olivia F Naismith; Victoria Harris; Christopher D Scrase; John Staffurth; Isabel Syndikus; Anjali Zarkar; Daniel R Ford; Yvonne L Rimmer; Gail Horan; Vincent Khoo; John Frew; Ramachandran Venkitaraman; Emma Hall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anna C Nuijens; Arlene L Oei; Anne Bouhuijs; Nicolaas A P Franken; Coen R N Rasch; Lukas J A Stalpers Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: P K Møller; H Pappot; U Bernchou; T Schytte; Z V Mortensen; M F Á Brúnni; K B Dieperink Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Patricia Holch; Simon Pini; Ann M Henry; Susan Davidson; Jacki Routledge; Julia Brown; Kate Absolom; Alexandra Gilbert; Kevin Franks; Claire Hulme; Carolyn Morris; Galina Velikova Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-06-05