Pamela S Hinds1,2, Laura C Pinheiro3, Molly McFatrich4, Mia Waldron1,2, Justin N Baker5, Catriona Mowbray1, Scott H Maurer6, Yao Cheng1, Bryce B Reeve4, Jichuan Wang1,2. 1. Children's National Health System, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. 2. George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. 3. Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 4. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 5. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 6. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Collecting symptom, function, and adverse event (AE) data directly from children and adolescents undergoing cancer care is more comprehensive and accurate than relying solely on their caregivers or clinicians for their interpretations. We developed the pediatric patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) measurement system with input from children, parents, and clinicians. Here, we report how we determined the recommended Ped-PRO-CTCAE item scoring approach. METHODS: Data from 271 patients were analyzed using three scoring approaches: (a) at the AE attribute (frequency, severity, interference) using ordinal and dichotomous measures; (b) a weighted composite AE item score by AE attribute (0.5 - frequency; 1.0 - severity; 1.5 - interference); and (c) overall number of AEs endorsed. Associations of each AE attribute, AE item score, and overall AE score with the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric measures were examined. The ability of the overall Ped-PRO-CTCAE AE score to identify patients with PROMIS symptom T-scores worse than reference population scores was assessed. Clinician preference for score information display was elicited through interviews with five pediatric oncology clinical trialists. RESULTS: The diverse scoring approaches yielded similar outcomes, including positive correlations of the Ped-PRO-CTCAE attributes, AE item score, and the overall AEs score with the PROMIS Pediatric measures. Clinicians preferred the most granular display of scoring information (actual score reported by the child and corresponding descriptive term). CONCLUSIONS: Although three scoring approaches yielded similar results, we recommend the AE attribute level of one score per Ped-PRO-CTCAE AE attribute for its simplicity of use in care and research.
BACKGROUND: Collecting symptom, function, and adverse event (AE) data directly from children and adolescents undergoing cancer care is more comprehensive and accurate than relying solely on their caregivers or clinicians for their interpretations. We developed the pediatric patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) measurement system with input from children, parents, and clinicians. Here, we report how we determined the recommended Ped-PRO-CTCAE item scoring approach. METHODS: Data from 271 patients were analyzed using three scoring approaches: (a) at the AE attribute (frequency, severity, interference) using ordinal and dichotomous measures; (b) a weighted composite AE item score by AE attribute (0.5 - frequency; 1.0 - severity; 1.5 - interference); and (c) overall number of AEs endorsed. Associations of each AE attribute, AE item score, and overall AE score with the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric measures were examined. The ability of the overall Ped-PRO-CTCAE AE score to identify patients with PROMIS symptom T-scores worse than reference population scores was assessed. Clinician preference for score information display was elicited through interviews with five pediatric oncology clinical trialists. RESULTS: The diverse scoring approaches yielded similar outcomes, including positive correlations of the Ped-PRO-CTCAE attributes, AE item score, and the overall AEs score with the PROMIS Pediatric measures. Clinicians preferred the most granular display of scoring information (actual score reported by the child and corresponding descriptive term). CONCLUSIONS: Although three scoring approaches yielded similar results, we recommend the AE attribute level of one score per Ped-PRO-CTCAE AE attribute for its simplicity of use in care and research.
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: Daniel J Zheng; Kevin R Krull; Yan Chen; Lisa Diller; Yutaka Yasui; Wendy Leisenring; Pim Brouwers; Rebecca Howell; Jin-Shei Lai; Lyn Balsamo; Kevin C Oeffinger; Leslie L Robison; Gregory T Armstrong; Nina S Kadan-Lottick Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Catherine F Macpherson; Jichuan Wang; Darren A DeWalt; Emily D Stern; Shana Jacobs; Pamela S Hinds Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Darren A DeWalt; Heather E Gross; Debbie S Gipson; David T Selewski; Esi Morgan DeWitt; Carlton D Dampier; Pamela S Hinds; I-Chan Huang; David Thissen; James W Varni Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Daniel Shepshelovich; Kate McDonald; Anna Spreafico; Albiruni R A Razak; Philippe L Bedard; Lillian L Siu; Lori Minasian; Aaron R Hansen Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-02-06
Authors: I-Chan Huang; Tara M Brinkman; Larry Mullins; Ching-Hon Pui; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson; Kevin R Krull Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 3.894