Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 1/2018

07-09-2017

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

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

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2018

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

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.
vorige artikel Self-rated health as a predictor of mid-term and long-term mortality in older Afro-Caribbeans hospitalised via the emergency department
volgende 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
Literatuur
1.
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
2.
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
3.
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
4.
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
5.
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
6.
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
7.
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
8.
9.
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.
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
Metagegevens
Titel
Prevalence of patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms and agreement with clinician toxicity assessments in radiation therapy for anal cancer
Auteurs
Ashlyn Tom
Antonia V. Bennett
Diana Rothenstein
Ethel Law
Karyn A. Goodman
Publicatiedatum
07-09-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1700-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2018

Quality of Life Research 1/2018 Naar de uitgave

Brief Communication

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

OriginalPaper

Physical activity and health-related quality of life among schoolchildren from disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Special Section: Measuring What Matters (by invitation only)

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

Special Section: Measuring What Matters (by invitation only)

Beyond study participants: a framework for engaging patients in the selection or development of clinical outcome assessments for evaluating the benefits of treatment in medical product development

OriginalPaper

Development and psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS Pediatric Life Satisfaction item banks, child-report, and parent-proxy editions

Special Section: Measuring What Matters (by invitation only)

Moving from significance to real-world meaning: methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores