nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

07.09.2017

Prevalence of patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms and agreement with clinician toxicity assessments in radiation therapy for anal cancer

verfasst von: Ashlyn Tom, Antonia V. Bennett, Diana Rothenstein, Ethel Law, Karyn A. Goodman

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms pose a significant burden to patients receiving chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for anal cancer; however, the impact of symptoms from the patient perspective has not been quantified. This retrospective study examined and compared patient and clinician reports of acute GI toxicity during CRT.

Materials and methods

Patients treated with definitive RT using intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal cancer between 9/09 and 11/12 were reviewed. Median RT dose was 56 Gy (range 45–56), and 76 patients (97%) received concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. During RT, patients completed the 7-item Bowel Problem Scale (BPS) weekly. Clinicians assessed toxicity separately using CTCAE v. 3.0. Scores of BPS ≥ 3 and CTCAE ≥ 1 were considered to be clinically meaningful. Agreement of the two assessments was evaluated by Cohen’s kappa coefficient.

Results

Seventy-eight patients completed at least one BPS and had a corresponding clinician assessment. Patients reporting scores of ≥3 was highest at week 5 (n = 68) for diarrhea (44.1%), proctitis (57.4%), and mucus (48.4%), while urgency (47.6%), tenesmus (31.7%), and cramping (27%) were highest at week 4 (n = 63). Baseline bleeding scores (26.7%; score ≥3) improved during treatment (13.4% at week 5). “Poor” agreement was observed between patient- and clinician-reported proctitis (Cohen’s k = 0.11; n = 58); however, there was “good” agreement for diarrhea (Cohen’s k = 0.68; n = 58).

Conclusions

Acute GI toxicity during definitive CRT for anal cancer was most significant during weeks 4–5, while rectal bleeding improved during treatment. Discrepancies in patient- and clinician-reported symptoms demonstrate the potential for patient-reported outcomes to be useful tools for anal cancer clinical assessments.

Vorheriger Artikel Self-rated health as a predictor of mid-term and long-term mortality in older Afro-Caribbeans hospitalised via the emergency department

Nächster Artikel Effects of risk factors for and components of metabolic syndrome on the quality of life of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a structural equation modeling approach

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Devisetty, K., Mell, L. K., Salama, J. K., Schomas, D. A., Miller, R. C., Jani, A. B., et al. (2009). A multi-institutional acute gastrointestinal toxicity analysis of anal cancer patients treated with concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and chemotherapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 93(2), 298–301.CrossRefPubMed

Kachnic, L. A., Tsai, H. K., Coen, J. J., Blaszkowsky, L. S., Hartshorn, K., Kwak, E. L., et al. (2012). Dose-painted intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal cancer: A multi-institutional report of acute toxicity and response to therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 82(1), 153–158.CrossRef

Han, K., Cummings, B. J., Lindsay, P., Skliarenko, J., Craig, T., Le, L. W., et al. (2014). Prospective evaluation of acute toxicity and quality of life after IMRT and concurrent chemotherapy for anal canal and perianal cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 90(3), 587–594.CrossRef

Bazan, J. G., Hara, W., Hsu, A., Kunz, P. A., Ford, J., Fisher, G. A., et al. (2011). Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conventional radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Cancer, 117(15), 3342–3351.CrossRefPubMed

Quinten, C., Maringwa, J., Gotay, C. C., Martinelli, F., Coens, C., Reeve, B. B., et al. (2011). Patient self-reports of symptoms and clinician ratings as predictors of overall cancer survival. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(24), 1851–1858.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Basch, E., Iasonos, A., McDonough, T., Barz, A., Culkin, A., Kris, M. G., et al. (2006). Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute common terminology criteria for adverse events: Results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncology, 7(11), 903–909.CrossRefPubMed

Basch, E., Jia, X., Heller, G., Barz, A., Sit, L., Fruscione, M., et al. (2009). Adverse symptom event reporting by patients versus clinicians: Relationships with clinical outcomes. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101(23), 1624–1632.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Basch, E. (2010). The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(10), 865–869.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Trotti, A., Colevas, A. D., Setser, A., & Basch, E. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes and the evolution of adverse event reporting in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(32), 5121–5127.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Myerson, R. J., Garofalo, M. C., El Naqa, I., Abrams, R. A., Apte, A., Bosch, W. R., et al. (2009). Elective clinical target volumes for conformal therapy in anorectal cancer: a radiation therapy oncology group consensus panel contouring atlas. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics., 74(3), 824–830.CrossRef

11.

Clark, J. A., & Talcott, J. A. (2001). Symptom indexes to assess outcomes of treatment for early prostate cancer. Medical Care, 39(10), 1118–1130.CrossRefPubMed

12.

National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer therapy program, common terminology criteria for adverse events, Version 3.0. August 9, 2006. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf

13.

Chen, R. C., Mamon, H. J., Chen, Y. H., Gelman, R. S., Suh, W. W., Talcott, J. A., et al. (2010). Patient-reported acute gastrointestinal symptoms during concurrent chemoradiation treatment for rectal cancer. Cancer, 116(8), 1879–1886.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Flores, L. T., Bennett, A. V., Law, E. B., Hajj, C., Griffith, M. P., & Goodman, K. A. (2012). Patient-reported outcomes versus clinician symptom reporting during chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Gastrointestinal Cancer Research., 5(4), 119–124.PubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Cohen, Jacob. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.CrossRef

16.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Karnofsky, D. A., & Burchenal, J. H. (1949). The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In C. M. MacLeod (Ed.), evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents (p. 196). New York: Columbia Univ Press.

18.

Fromme, E. K., Eilers, K. M., Mori, M., Hsieh, Y. C., & Beer, T. M. (2004). How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(17), 3485–3490.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Xiao, C., Polomano, R., & Bruner, D. W. (2013). Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-observed symptoms in oncology. Cancer Nursing, 36(6), E1–E16.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Efficace, F., Rosti, G., Aaronson, N., Cottone, F., Angelucci, E., Molica, S., et al. (2014). Patient- versus physician-reporting of symptoms and health status in chronic myeloid leukemia. Haematologica, 99(4), 788–793.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Jensen, R. E., Rothrock, N. E., DeWitt, E. M., Spiegel, B., Tucker, C. A., Crane, H. M., et al. (2015). The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Medical Care, 53(2), 153–159.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Bennett, A. V., Jensen, R. E., & Basch, E. (2012). Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(5), 336–347.

23.

Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Brundage, M. D., Smith, K. C., Little, E. A., Bantug, E. T., & Snyder, C. F. (2015). Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 24(10), 2457–2472.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Chung, A. E., & Basch, E. M. (2015). Incorporating the patient’s voice into electronic health records through patient-reported outcomes as the “review of systems”. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(4), 914–916.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Prevalence of patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms and agreement with clinician toxicity assessments in radiation therapy for anal cancer
verfasst von: Ashlyn Tom
Antonia V. Bennett
Diana Rothenstein
Ethel Law
Karyn A. Goodman
Publikationsdatum: 07.09.2017
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1700-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Effects of risk factors for and components of metabolic syndrome on the quality of life of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a structural equation modeling approach

Health-related quality of life, developmental milestones, and self-esteem in young adults with bleeding disorders

Measuring what matters MOST: validation of the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment, a patient-reported outcome measure of symptom burden and impact of chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer

Assessing the measurement invariance of the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale in Chinese and American adolescents

The relationship of five boarding school experiences and physical health status among Northern Plains Tribes

Development of a care guidance index based on what matters to patients

Premium Partner