Michael E O'Callaghan1, Elspeth Raymond2, Jared M Campbell3, Andrew D Vincent4, Kerri Beckmann5, David Roder6, Sue Evans7, John McNeil7, Jeremy Millar8, John Zalcberg7, Martin Borg9, Kim Moretti10. 1. South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative; Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide; Urology Unit, Repatriation General Hospital, SA Health; Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer. Electronic address: elspeth.raymond@health.sa.gov.au. 2. South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative. 3. Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide. 4. Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide. 5. South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative; Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia. 6. Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia. 7. Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University. 8. Radiation Oncology, Alfred Health. 9. South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative; Adelaide Radiotherapy Centre. 10. South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative; Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, University of Adelaide; Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer; Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia; Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify, through a systematic review, all validated tools used for the prediction of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients being treated with radiation therapy for prostate cancer, and provide a comparative summary of accuracy and generalizability. METHODS AND MATERIALS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title/abstract screening, full text review, and critical appraisal were undertaken by 2 reviewers, whereas data extraction was performed by a single reviewer. Eligible articles had to provide a summary measure of accuracy and undertake internal or external validation. Tools were recommended for clinical implementation if they had been externally validated and found to have accuracy ≥70%. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 3839 potential studies, of which 236 progressed to full text review and 22 were included. From these studies, 50 tools predicted gastrointestinal/rectal symptoms, 29 tools predicted genitourinary symptoms, 4 tools predicted erectile dysfunction, and no tools predicted quality of life. For patients treated with external beam radiation therapy, 3 tools could be recommended for the prediction of rectal toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and erectile dysfunction. For patients treated with brachytherapy, 2 tools could be recommended for the prediction of urinary retention and erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of tools for the prediction of PROMs in prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy have been developed. Only a small minority are accurate and have been shown to be generalizable through external validation. This review provides an accessible catalogue of tools that are ready for clinical implementation as well as which should be prioritized for validation.
PURPOSE: To identify, through a systematic review, all validated tools used for the prediction of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients being treated with radiation therapy for prostate cancer, and provide a comparative summary of accuracy and generalizability. METHODS AND MATERIALS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from July 2007. Title/abstract screening, full text review, and critical appraisal were undertaken by 2 reviewers, whereas data extraction was performed by a single reviewer. Eligible articles had to provide a summary measure of accuracy and undertake internal or external validation. Tools were recommended for clinical implementation if they had been externally validated and found to have accuracy ≥70%. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 3839 potential studies, of which 236 progressed to full text review and 22 were included. From these studies, 50 tools predicted gastrointestinal/rectal symptoms, 29 tools predicted genitourinary symptoms, 4 tools predicted erectile dysfunction, and no tools predicted quality of life. For patients treated with external beam radiation therapy, 3 tools could be recommended for the prediction of rectal toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and erectile dysfunction. For patients treated with brachytherapy, 2 tools could be recommended for the prediction of urinary retention and erectile dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of tools for the prediction of PROMs in prostate cancerpatients treated with radiation therapy have been developed. Only a small minority are accurate and have been shown to be generalizable through external validation. This review provides an accessible catalogue of tools that are ready for clinical implementation as well as which should be prioritized for validation.
Authors: John Kang; Tiziana Rancati; Sangkyu Lee; Jung Hun Oh; Sarah L Kerns; Jacob G Scott; Russell Schwartz; Seyoung Kim; Barry S Rosenstein Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Oscar Casares-Magaz; Ludvig P Muren; Niclas Pettersson; Maria Thor; Austin Hopper; Rick Knopp; Joseph O Deasy; Michael Væth; John Einck; Vitali Moiseenko Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-05
Authors: Roman O Kowalchuk; David Hillman; Thomas B Daniels; Carlos E Vargas; Jean-Claude M Rwigema; William W Wong; Bradley J Stish; Amylou C Dueck; Richard Choo Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-15