Tamara P Miller1,2, Richard Aplenc3,4. 1. Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, 2015 Uppergate Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. tamara.miller@emory.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. tamara.miller@emory.edu. 3. Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Reporting of adverse events on hematology clinical trials is crucial to understanding the safety of standard treatments and novel agents. However, despite the importance of understanding toxicities, challenges in capturing and reporting accurate adverse event data exist. RECENT FINDINGS: Currently, adverse events are reported manually on most hematology clinical trials. Especially on phase III trials, the highest grade of each adverse event during a reporting period is typically reported. Despite the effort committed to AE reporting, studies have identified underreporting of adverse events on hematologic malignancy clinical trials, which raises concern about the true understanding of safety of treatment that clinicians have in order to guide patients about what to expect during therapy. In order to address these concerns, recent studies have piloted alternative methods for identification of adverse events. These methods include automated extraction of adverse event data from the electronic health record, implementation of trigger or alert tools into the medical record, and analytic tools to evaluate duration of adverse events rather than only the highest adverse event grade. Adverse event reporting is a crucial component of clinical trials. Novel tools for identifying and reporting adverse events provide opportunities for honing and refining methods of toxicity capture and improving understanding of toxicities patients experience while enrolled on clinical trials.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Reporting of adverse events on hematology clinical trials is crucial to understanding the safety of standard treatments and novel agents. However, despite the importance of understanding toxicities, challenges in capturing and reporting accurate adverse event data exist. RECENT FINDINGS: Currently, adverse events are reported manually on most hematology clinical trials. Especially on phase III trials, the highest grade of each adverse event during a reporting period is typically reported. Despite the effort committed to AE reporting, studies have identified underreporting of adverse events on hematologic malignancy clinical trials, which raises concern about the true understanding of safety of treatment that clinicians have in order to guide patients about what to expect during therapy. In order to address these concerns, recent studies have piloted alternative methods for identification of adverse events. These methods include automated extraction of adverse event data from the electronic health record, implementation of trigger or alert tools into the medical record, and analytic tools to evaluate duration of adverse events rather than only the highest adverse event grade. Adverse event reporting is a crucial component of clinical trials. Novel tools for identifying and reporting adverse events provide opportunities for honing and refining methods of toxicity capture and improving understanding of toxicitiespatients experience while enrolled on clinical trials.
Authors: Alice P Chen; Ann Setser; Milan J Anadkat; Jonathan Cotliar; Elise A Olsen; Benjamin C Garden; Mario E Lacouture Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Tamara P Miller; Brian T Fisher; Kelly D Getz; Leah Sack; Hanieh Razzaghi; Alix E Seif; Rochelle Bagatell; Peter C Adamson; Richard Aplenc Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Amylou C Dueck; Tito R Mendoza; Sandra A Mitchell; Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen M Castro; Lauren J Rogak; Thomas M Atkinson; Antonia V Bennett; Andrea M Denicoff; Ann M O'Mara; Yuelin Li; Steven B Clauser; Donna M Bryant; James D Bearden; Theresa A Gillis; Jay K Harness; Robert D Siegel; Diane B Paul; Charles S Cleeland; Deborah Schrag; Jeff A Sloan; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah W Bruner; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Tamara P Miller; Yimei Li; Kelly D Getz; Jesse Dudley; Evanette Burrows; Jeffrey Pennington; Azada Ibrahimova; Brian T Fisher; Rochelle Bagatell; Alix E Seif; Robert Grundmeier; Richard Aplenc Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Molly McFatrich; Jennifer Brondon; Nicole R Lucas; Pamela S Hinds; Scott H Maurer; Jennifer W Mack; David R Freyer; Shana S Jacobs; Justin N Baker; Catriona Mowbray; Mian Wang; Sharon M Castellino; Allison Barz Leahy; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Arlene E Chung; Kimberly Shoenbill; Sandra A Mitchell; Amylou C Dueck; Deborah Schrag; Deborah W Bruner; Lori M Minasian; Diane St Germain; Ann M O'Mara; Paul Baumgartner; Lauren J Rogak; Amy P Abernethy; Ashley C Griffin; Ethan M Basch Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andy Trotti; A Dimitrios Colevas; Ann Setser; Valerie Rusch; David Jaques; Volker Budach; Corey Langer; Barbara Murphy; Richard Cumberlin; C Norman Coleman; Philip Rubin Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Tamara P Miller; Kelly D Getz; Yimei Li; Biniyam G Demissei; Peter C Adamson; Todd A Alonzo; Evanette Burrows; Lusha Cao; Sharon M Castellino; Marla H Daves; Brian T Fisher; Robert Gerbing; Robert W Grundmeier; Edward M Krause; Judy Lee; Philip J Lupo; Karen R Rabin; Mark Ramos; Michael E Scheurer; Jennifer J Wilkes; Lena E Winestone; Douglas S Hawkins; M Monica Gramatges; Richard Aplenc Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 30.153