Tara Behroozian1, Lauren T Milton1, Neil H Shear2, Erin McKenzie1, Yasmeen Razvi1, Irene Karam1, Kucy Pon2, Henry Lam1, Emily Lam1, Edward Chow3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. 2. Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. Edward.Chow@sunnybrook.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review aimed to assess the quality and efficacy of tools currently used in breast cancer patients to score radiation dermatitis (RD), a common debilitating side effect of radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: A search was conducted through Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases on 14 February 2020. English articles that evaluated an instrument's use in assessing RD among breast cancer patients receiving external beam RT were included. Studies that reported on the reliability, validity, or concordance of items between assessment tools were included in accordance with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this review, with a total of 13 skin toxicity assessment tools discussed. Tools that assessed clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) mostly reported moderate correlation with biophysical parameter (BP) measurements and low correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Traditionally used CRO scoring tools demonstrated moderate inter-rater reliability between clinicians, likely due to the subjective nature of items on the grading scales. Most commonly used tools were found to be either insufficient or indeterminate in their measurement properties. CONCLUSIONS: Current standardized tools that measure CROs are subject to clinician interpretation and fail to represent the patient experience. Tools designed to assess PROs are promising in their assessments of the impact of RT on patient quality of life; however, most PRO tools are generic to all skin conditions and require further validation for use in breast cancer. Among tools that measure CROs, PROs, and BPs, there is insufficient evidence on their measurement properties to establish a "gold standard" for the assessment of RD in breast cancer patients.
PURPOSE: This review aimed to assess the quality and efficacy of tools currently used in breast cancerpatients to score radiation dermatitis (RD), a common debilitating side effect of radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: A search was conducted through Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases on 14 February 2020. English articles that evaluated an instrument's use in assessing RD among breast cancerpatients receiving external beam RT were included. Studies that reported on the reliability, validity, or concordance of items between assessment tools were included in accordance with the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this review, with a total of 13 skin toxicity assessment tools discussed. Tools that assessed clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) mostly reported moderate correlation with biophysical parameter (BP) measurements and low correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Traditionally used CRO scoring tools demonstrated moderate inter-rater reliability between clinicians, likely due to the subjective nature of items on the grading scales. Most commonly used tools were found to be either insufficient or indeterminate in their measurement properties. CONCLUSIONS: Current standardized tools that measure CROs are subject to clinician interpretation and fail to represent the patient experience. Tools designed to assess PROs are promising in their assessments of the impact of RT on patient quality of life; however, most PRO tools are generic to all skin conditions and require further validation for use in breast cancer. Among tools that measure CROs, PROs, and BPs, there is insufficient evidence on their measurement properties to establish a "gold standard" for the assessment of RD in breast cancerpatients.
Authors: C A C Prinsen; L B Mokkink; L M Bouter; J Alonso; D L Patrick; H C W de Vet; C B Terwee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: L B Mokkink; H C W de Vet; C A C Prinsen; D L Patrick; J Alonso; L M Bouter; C B Terwee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jieun Lee; Won Park; Doo Ho Choi; Seung Jae Huh; Im-Ryung Kim; Danbee Kang; Juhee Cho Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-02-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Eric Berthelet; Pauline T Truong; Karin Musso; Vickie Grant; Winkle Kwan; Veronika Moravan; Kelly Patterson; Ivo A Olivotto Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.339
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: Samuel Finkelstein; Lauren Kanee; Tara Behroozian; Julie Ryan Wolf; Corina van den Hurk; Edward Chow; Pierluigi Bonomo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Cheryl Duzenli; Elisa K Chan; Theodora Koulis; Sheri Grahame; Joel Singer; David Morris; Josslynn Spence; Terry Lee; Levi Burns; Robert A Olson Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.109