Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 110–122 | Cite as

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

  • Deborah Watkins Bruner
  • Laura J Hanisch
  • Bryce B Reeve
  • Andy M Trotti
  • Deborah Schrag
  • Laura Sit
  • Tito R Mendoza
  • Lori Minasian
  • Ann O’Mara
  • Andrea M Denicoff
  • Julia H Rowland
  • Michael Montello
  • Cindy Geoghegan
  • Amy P Abernethy
  • Steven B Clauser
  • Kathleen Castro
  • Sandra A Mitchell
  • Laurie Burke
  • Ann Marie Trentacosti
  • Ethan M Basch
Article

Abstract

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patient-reported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the “PRO-CTCAE.” The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI’s cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic self-reporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcomes Symptoms, adverse events Oncology Cancer, Clinical trials Toxicity, safety Tolerability Comparative effectiveness research Cooperative groups National Cancer Institute 

References

  1. 1.
    National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. NIH publication # 09-7473. Published May 29, 2009; Revised Version 4.02 September 15, 2009 (available at http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf, last accessed December 30, 2010).
  2. 2.
    Trotti, A., Colevas, A. D., et al. (2003). CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Seminars in Radiation Oncology, 13(3), 176–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fromme, E. K., Eilers, K. M., et al. (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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basch, E. (2010). The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. The New England Journal of Medicine, 362(10), 865–869.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pakhomov, S. V., Jacobsen, S. J., Chute, C. G., & Roger, V. L. (2008). Agreement between patient-reported symptoms and their documentation in the medical record. American Journal of Managed Care, 14, 530–539.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schnadig, I. D., Fromme, E. K., et al. (2008). Patient-physician disagreement regarding performance status is associated with worse survivorship in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer, 113(8), 2205–2214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parliament, M. B., Danjoux, C. E., et al. (1985). Is cancer treatment toxicity accurately reported? International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 11(3), 603–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basch, E., Iasonos, A., McDonough, T., Barz, A., Culkin, A., Kris, M. G., et al. (2006). Clinician versus patient self-reporting of symptoms during cancer treatment: a paired analysis using the national cancer institute’s common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE). The Lancet Oncology, 7(10), 903–909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bruner, D. W., Scott, C., et al. (1995). RTOG’s first quality of life study–RTOG 90-20: a phase II trial of external beam radiation with etanidazole for locally advanced prostate cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology and Physics, 33(4), 901–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Varricchio, C. G., & Sloan, J. A. (2002). The need for and characteristics of randomized, phase III trials to evaluate symptom management in patients with cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(16), 1184–1185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Issued December 2009 (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf, last accessed February 9, 2011).
  13. 13.
    Willke, R. J., Burke, L. B., et al. (2004). Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25(6), 535–552.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruner, D. W., Bryan, C. J., Aaronson, N., Blackmore, C. C., Brundage, M., Cella, D., et al. (2007). Issues and challenges with integrating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials supported by the national cancer institute-sponsored clinical trials network. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(32), 5051–5057.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Velikova, G. L., Booth, et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sloan, J. A., Cella, D., et al. (2005). Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: another step toward consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(12), 1217–1219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lipscomb, J., Reeve, B. B., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: taking stock, moving forward. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(32), 5133–5140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patrick, D. L., Ferketich, S. L., et al. (2003). National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference statement: symptom management in cancer: pain, depression, and fatigue, July 15–17, 2002. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95(15), 1110–1117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rock, E. P., Kennedy, D. L., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes supporting anticancer product approvals. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(32), 5094–5099.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basch, E., Artz, D., Dulko, D., Scher, K., Sabbatini, P., Hensley, M., et al. (2005). Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(15), 3552–3561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abernethy, A. P., Ahmad, A., Zafar, S. Y., Wheeler, J. L., Reese, J. B., & Lyerly, H. K. (2010). Electronic patient-reported data capture as a foundation of rapid learning cancer care. Medical Care, 48(6 Suppl), S32–S38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Committee on Cancer Clinical Trials and the NCI Cooperative Group Program, Institute of Medicine. (2010). A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative group program. Washington: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. (2010). A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI cooperative group program. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buetow, K. H. (2009). An infrastructure for interconnecting research institutions. Drug Discovery Today, 14(11–12), 605–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chilukuri, R., Gulati, M., Agarwal, H., Baumgartner, P., Reeve, B., Sit, L., et al. (2009). Software system for administering the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE). Presented at the National Cancer Institute caBIG Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Basch, E., Reeve, B. B., Cleeland, C. S., Sloan, J. A., Mendoza, T. R., Abernethy, A. P., et al. (2010). Development of the patient-reported version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). Presented at 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. J Clin Oncol 28 (suppl; abstr e19605).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hay, J., Atkinson, T. M., Mendoza, T. R., Reeve, B. B., Willis, G., Gagne, J. J., et al. (2010). Refinement of the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) via cognitive interviewing. Presented at 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. J Clin Oncol 28:15s (suppl; abstr 9060).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dueck, A. C., Mendoza, T. R., Reeve, B. B., Sloan, J. A., Cleeland, C. S., Hay, J., et al. (2010) Validation study of the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). Presented at 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. J Clin Oncol 28:15s (suppl; abstr TPS274).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Watkins Bruner
    • 1
  • Laura J Hanisch
    • 2
  • Bryce B Reeve
    • 3
  • Andy M Trotti
    • 4
  • Deborah Schrag
    • 5
  • Laura Sit
    • 6
  • Tito R Mendoza
    • 7
  • Lori Minasian
    • 8
  • Ann O’Mara
    • 9
  • Andrea M Denicoff
    • 10
  • Julia H Rowland
    • 11
  • Michael Montello
    • 12
  • Cindy Geoghegan
    • 13
  • Amy P Abernethy
    • 14
  • Steven B Clauser
    • 15
  • Kathleen Castro
    • 16
  • Sandra A Mitchell
    • 17
  • Laurie Burke
    • 18
  • Ann Marie Trentacosti
    • 19
  • Ethan M Basch
    • 20
  1. 1.School of Nursing, Abramson Cancer CenterUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Cancer Control and Outcomes Program, Abramson Cancer CenterUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampaUSA
  5. 5.Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteGastrointestinal Cancer CenterBostonUSA
  6. 6.Health Outcomes Group, Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Department of Symptom ResearchThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  8. 8.Community Oncology and Prevention Trials Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, NIHBethesdaUSA
  9. 9.Palliative Care Research, Community Oncology and Prevention Trials Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  10. 10.Clinical Investigations Branch, CTEP, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  11. 11.Office of Cancer Survivorship, Division of Cancer Control and Population SciencesNational Cancer Institute, NIH/DHHSBethesdaUSA
  12. 12.National Cancer InstituteClinical Trials TechnologyBethesdaUSA
  13. 13.Breast Cancer Network of StrengthChicagoUSA
  14. 14.Department of MedicineDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  15. 15.Outcomes Research Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population SciencesNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  16. 16.Outcomes Research Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population SciencesNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  17. 17.Outcomes Research Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population SciencesNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  18. 18.Study Endpoints and Label Development, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA
  19. 19.Study Endpoints and Label Development, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA
  20. 20.Health Outcomes Group, Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations