Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)
- 824 Downloads
The National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is a library of question items that enables patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials. This study contributes content validity evidence of the PRO-CTCAE by incorporating cancer patient input of the relevance and comprehensiveness of the item library.
Cognitive interviews were conducted among patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at multiple sites to evaluate comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response mapping related to AE terms (e.g., nausea), attribute terms (regarding frequency, severity, or interference), response options, and recall period. Three interview rounds were conducted with ≥20 patients completing each item per round. Items were modified and retested if ≥3 patients exhibited cognitive difficulties or if experienced by ≤25 % patients.
One hundred and twenty-seven patients participated (35 % ≤high school, 28 % non-white, and 59 % female). Most AE terms (63/80) generated no cognitive difficulties. The remaining 17 were modified without further difficulties by Round 3. Terms were comprehended regardless of education level. Attribute terms and response options required no modifications. Patient adherence to recall period (7 days) was improved when the reference period was incorporated.
This study provides evidence confirming comprehension of the US English language versions of items in the PRO-CTCAE library for measuring symptomatic AEs from the patient perspective within the context of cancer treatment. Several minor changes were made to the items to improve item clarity, comprehension, and ease of response judgment. This study helps to establish the content validity of PRO-CTCAE items for patient reporting of AEs during cancer treatment.
KeywordsDrug toxicity Neoplasms Psychometrics Reproducibility of results Qualitative research
Work described in this report was supported by contracts from the United States National Cancer Institute, HHSN261201000043C and HHSN261201000063C. Each author met all International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements (i.e., conception/design/acquisition/analysis, drafting/revising article, and final approval) for authorship.
- 2.National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. Published May 28, 2009; Revised version 4.03 June 14, 2010 (Vol. Available from: http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2013).
- 4.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, 903–909. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70910-X.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Greimel, E. R., Bjelic-Radisic, V., Pfisterer, J., Hilpert, F., Daghofer, F., Pujade-Lauraine, E., et al. (2011). Toxicity and quality of life outcomes in ovarian cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials. Supportive Care in Cancer, 19(9), 1421–1427. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0969-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry. patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical development to support labeling claims (December 2009. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2013).
- 13.European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Pre-authorisation evaluation of medicines for human use: Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products (January 2006, Available from: http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/emea-hrql-guidance.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2013).
- 14.Ashley, L., Jones, H., Thomas, J., Forman, D., Newsham, A., Morris, E., et al. (2011). Integrating cancer survivors’ experiences into UK cancer registries: Design and development of the ePOCS system (electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors). British Journal of Cancer, 105, S74–S81. doi: 10.1038/Bjc.2011.424.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Farnell, D. J., Mandall, P., Anandadas, C., Routledge, J., Burns, M. P., Logue, J. P., et al. (2010). Development of a patient-reported questionnaire for collecting toxicity data following prostate brachytherapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 97(1), 136–142. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.05.011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.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. doi: 10.1093/Jnci/Djr485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Stacey, D., Bakker, D., Ballantyne, B., Chapman, K., Cumminger, J., Green, E., et al. (2012). Managing symptoms during cancer treatments: evaluating the implementation of evidence-informed remote support protocols. Implementation Science, 7, 110. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Johansen, M. A., Henriksen, E., Horsch, A., Schuster, T., & Berntsen, G. K. R. (2012). Electronic symptom reporting between patient and provider for improved health care service quality: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Part 1: State of the Art. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(5). doi: 10.2196/jmir.2214.
- 30.Wild, D., Eremenco, S., Mear, I., Martin, M., Houchin, C., Gawlicki, M., et al. (2009). Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: The ISPOR patient-reported outcomes translation and linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 430–440. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00471.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Basch, E., Reeve, B. B., Mitchell, S. A., Clauser, S. B., Minasian, L. M., Atkinson, T. M., et al. (Under Review). Development of the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Journal of National Cancer Institute.Google Scholar
- 32.Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- 33.Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E., et al. (2011). Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly Developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 2-assessing respondent understanding. Value in Health, 14(8), 978–988. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Schwarz, N., Oyserman, D., & Petycheva, E. (2010). Cognition, communication, and culture: Implications for the survey response process. In J. A. Harkness, M. Braun, B. Edwards, T. P. Johnson, L. E. Lyberg, P. P. Mohler, et al. (Eds.), Survey methods in multinational, multicultural, and multiregional contexts (pp. 177–190). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- 40.Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey design: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- 41.Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairy, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In G. Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 137–161). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
- 42.Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 44.Symptom Management and Quality of Life Steering Committee. Clinical trials planning meeting—building bridges: The identification of core symptoms and health-related quality of life domains for use in cancer research (September 22–23, 2011. Available from: http://transformingtrials.cancer.gov/files/SxQOLSCPROCTPMExecutive%20Summary_FINAL.pdf Accessed 7 June 2012).
- 45.Mitchell, S. A., Lang, K., Nichols, C., Clauser, S. B., Federico, V., Lalla, D., et al. (2012). Validation of the NCI Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in women receiving treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Chicago, IL: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.Google Scholar
- 46.Dueck, A. C., Mendoza, T., Mitchell, S. A., Reeve, B. B., Castro, K., Denicoff, A., et al. (2012). Validity and reliability of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Chicago, IL: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.Google Scholar
- 47.Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.(2012) Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research—The PCORI perspective. JAMA, 307(15), 1636–1640. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.466.