Shing M Lee1, Dawn L Hershman2, Jieling Miao3, Xiaobo Zhong1, Joseph M Unger3, Ying Kuen Ken Cheung1. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York. 2. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, New York. 3. Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A summary measure that reflects the global toxicity burden of a treatment is essential for comparing therapies. Current toxicity summaries are ad hoc and do not distinguish among the severities and types of toxicities. Here a clinically feasible method for estimating the toxicity burden, based on a prospective evaluation of the toxicity profile of a randomized clinical trial of 746 prostate cancer patients conducted by SWOG, is proposed. METHODS: For 308 patients who experienced severe toxicities, 2 physicians randomly selected from 14 physicians evaluated each toxicity profile and assigned a visual analogue scale score (0-10) based on their impression of the global burden of toxicities. With mixed-effects models, severity scores and a 10-point toxicity burden score (TBS) were derived from 27 predictors accounting for severe (grade 3) and life-threatening (grade 4) toxicities for each organ class of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: For most organ classes, grade 3 toxicities had a TBS of 4.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.65-4.63), but infections, cardiovascular events, and pulmonary events had a higher TBS with differences of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.53-1.21), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.51-1.25), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.22-1.24), respectively. Moreover, most grade 4 events had a higher TBS than grade 3 events, except for hemorrhaging, pain, metabolic events, and musculoskeletal events. The intrarater and interrater correlations were 0.91 and 0.59, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of toxicity grades differs with toxicity types. A TBS provides a toxicity burden summary that incorporates physicians' perspectives and differentiates between severe and life-threatening toxicities and organ classes. Cancer 2018;124:858-64.
BACKGROUND: A summary measure that reflects the global toxicity burden of a treatment is essential for comparing therapies. Current toxicity summaries are ad hoc and do not distinguish among the severities and types of toxicities. Here a clinically feasible method for estimating the toxicity burden, based on a prospective evaluation of the toxicity profile of a randomized clinical trial of 746 prostate cancerpatients conducted by SWOG, is proposed. METHODS: For 308 patients who experienced severe toxicities, 2 physicians randomly selected from 14 physicians evaluated each toxicity profile and assigned a visual analogue scale score (0-10) based on their impression of the global burden of toxicities. With mixed-effects models, severity scores and a 10-point toxicity burden score (TBS) were derived from 27 predictors accounting for severe (grade 3) and life-threatening (grade 4) toxicities for each organ class of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: For most organ classes, grade 3 toxicities had a TBS of 4.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.65-4.63), but infections, cardiovascular events, and pulmonary events had a higher TBS with differences of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.53-1.21), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.51-1.25), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.22-1.24), respectively. Moreover, most grade 4 events had a higher TBS than grade 3 events, except for hemorrhaging, pain, metabolic events, and musculoskeletal events. The intrarater and interrater correlations were 0.91 and 0.59, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of toxicity grades differs with toxicity types. A TBS provides a toxicity burden summary that incorporates physicians' perspectives and differentiates between severe and life-threatening toxicities and organ classes. Cancer 2018;124:858-64.
Authors: Shing M Lee; Daniel Backenroth; Ying Kuen Ken Cheung; Dawn L Hershman; Diana Vulih; Barry Anderson; Percy Ivy; Lori Minasian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Nancy E Davidson; Dana S Wollins; Douglas W Blayney; Adam P Dicker; Patricia A Ganz; J Russell Hoverman; Robert Langdon; Gary H Lyman; Neal J Meropol; Therese Mulvey; Lee Newcomer; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Blase Polite; Derek Raghavan; Gregory Rossi; Leonard Saltz; Deborah Schrag; Thomas J Smith; Peter P Yu; Clifford A Hudis; Julie M Vose; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sophie Postel-Vinay; Carlos Gomez-Roca; L Rhoda Molife; Bhavesh Anghan; Antonin Levy; Ian Judson; Johann De Bono; Jean-Charles Soria; Stan Kaye; Xavier Paoletti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel P Petrylak; Catherine M Tangen; Maha H A Hussain; Primo N Lara; Jeffrey A Jones; Mary Ellen Taplin; Patrick A Burch; Donna Berry; Carol Moinpour; Manish Kohli; Mitchell C Benson; Eric J Small; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andy Trotti; Thomas F Pajak; Clement K Gwede; Rebecca Paulus; Jay Cooper; Arlene Forastiere; John A Ridge; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Adam S Garden; K Kian Ang; Wally Curran Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Gita Thanarajasingam; Pamela J Atherton; Paul J Novotny; Charles L Loprinzi; Jeff A Sloan; Axel Grothey Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Shing M Lee; Jieling Miao; Ruby Wu; Joseph M Unger; Ken Cheung; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 3.186