Patients\' self-reporting is increasingly considered essential to measure quality-of-life and treatment-related side-effects. However, if multiple patient-reported instruments are used, redundancy may represent an overload for patients. Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are a tool allowing direct patients\' reporting of side-effects. We tested psychometric properties of a selected list of PRO-CTCAE items, in a cohort of 303 breast cancer patients, using validated instruments for quality of life assessment as anchors. The analysis of convergent validity with HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and EORTC BR-23 sub-scales, and the analysis of responsiveness with the PGIC (Patients Global Impression of Change) score supported that a selected list of PRO-CTCAE symptoms might represent a standardized, agile tool for both research and practice settings to reduce patient burden without missing relevant information on patient perceptions. Among patients using digital devices, those with a higher education levels required shorter time to fulfil questionnaires. In conclusion, a selected list of PRO-CTCAE items can be considered as a standardized, agile tool for capturing crucial domains of side-effects and quality of life in patients with breast cancer. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04416672).

The 124-item patient reported-outcome common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) questionnaire, assessing 78 symptoms, is widely used in cancer clinical trials to identify side effects. However, its regular use in routine cancer care is rarely reported. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of weekly PRO-CTCAE completion over 9 weeks in a prospective study with 30 patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Participants were asked to complete electronic surveys with reminders, but no feedback or incentives. Only 136 (50%) of the planned 270 time points at which a PRO-CTCAE self-report was expected were completed, with an additional 21 (8%) partially completed, and represents a failure to achieve the expected level of completion. Patients reported experiencing up to 51 and a median of 30 symptoms across all time points, highlighting the complexity of symptom assessment in acute cancer care. While weekly implementation of the PRO-CTCAE may not be feasible outside of clinical trial settings, this study highlights the breadth of symptoms experienced.

BACKGROUND: The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is used as a tool to evaluate the adverse events (AE) of chemotherapy in cancer patients. Since CTCAE by medical providers underestimates AE more than patient-reported outcomes (PRO), the National Cancer Institute developed PRO-CTCAE. The present study investigated differences between symptoms detected using CTCAE by medical providers and PRO-CTCAE by breast cancer patients.
METHODS: Patients received chemotherapy comprising epirubicin and cyclophosphamide pre- or postoperatively. AE were evaluated using 4 questionnaires:PRO-CTCAE, CTCAE, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-30), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) after 1, 2, and 3 courses of chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Forty-two patients were registered. Regarding the recognition of psychological symptoms, such as fatigue, anxiety, and discouragement, and subjective symptoms, including heart palpitations and shortness of breath, PRO using PRO-CTCAE was significantly higher than medical provider-recognized outcomes using CTCAE. Concerning the recognition of regimen-specific symptoms, such as vomiting, nausea, and decreased appetite, medical provider- recognized outcomes were the same or higher than PRO. In QLQ-C30, the physical and role functions, fatigue and dyspnea significantly worsened after 2 and 3 courses of chemotherapy. J. Med. Invest. 71 : 82-91, February, 2024.

\"Infobuttons\" spearheaded electronic health records (EHR) based decision support by offering automated knowledge resources to physicians. However, how such a mechanism could be leveraged to provide optimal resources to patients remains unanswered. Informatics approaches are expected to utilize more relevant information beyond EHR, such as patient-reported outcomes, to support clinical decisions. This pilot study is intended to explore how patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) in EHR can be incorporated and how to recommend tailored content to cancer patients via automated feedback.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients\' perspectives regarding drug tolerability, in addition to effectiveness, provides a complete picture of the patient experience and supports more informed therapeutic decision-making. The item library of the National Cancer Institute\'s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to measure patient-reported frequency, severity, and interference of adverse events (AEs) associated with cancer therapies. This qualitative interview study assessed the suitability of items selected from the PRO-CTCAE library for assessing tolerability of selexipag, a medication targeting the prostacyclin pathway for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).
METHODS: Two rounds of 10 qualitative, web-assisted telephone interviews following a semi-structured guide were conducted in individuals with recent experience taking oral selexipag for PAH. Each interview included concept elicitation to gather participants\' perspectives on symptomatic AEs (type, frequency, severity, and interference) and cognitive debriefing of PRO-CTCAE items addressing the most frequently reported AEs of oral selexipag.
RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 20 participants with PAH (mean [range] age 50 [24-68] years; 75% female; 85% in World Health Organization Functional Class II-III), comprising different races/ethnicities, levels of education, and employment status. Fifteen participants were currently treated with selexipag; five had taken selexipag for ≥ 6 months before discontinuing. The most frequently reported AEs included headache, jaw pain, and nausea (n = 15, 12, and 10 participants, respectively). Diarrhea and headache were identified as the most bothersome AEs by 5 and 4 participants, respectively. Some AEs were transitory (e.g., jaw pain); others were long-lasting (e.g., muscle pain). Based on findings from Round 1 interviews, a flushing item was added and the PRO-CTCAE general pain item was modified to be specific to jaw pain for testing in Round 2. Interview findings identified the following AEs as relevant to assess in a PAH clinical trial: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, flushing, jaw pain, headache, aching muscles, and aching joints.
CONCLUSIONS: The PRO-CTCAE items selected in this study and the additional symptomatic AEs identified as patient-relevant have the potential to be included in assessments capturing the patient perspective on tolerability in future studies of selexipag and possibly other PAH therapies.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients struggle with the trauma of the disease and its treatment. PRO-CTCAE was developed to improve the recording of underreported symptomatic toxicities. We evaluated the improvement and ease in reporting symptomatic adverse events through add-on PRO-CTCAE (via a mobile application) compared to standard clinician-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice. We also evaluated changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
METHODS: 110 cancer patients were studied for three weeks between their first and second chemotherapy session. HRQoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-c30.
RESULTS: Fifty-three patients self-reported their symptomatic adverse events on the day 7th & day 14th after the first cycle of chemotherapy. For the other fifty-seven patients, recording of adverse events was done by standard clinician-reported outcomes. All the patients in the study group reported adverse events compared to only 21 % in the standard reporting group. All 15 domains of adverse events were reported in the self-reporting group compared to only 5 in the standard reporting group. The self-reporting group had a significantly better overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-reporting of adverse events using mobile app-based PRO-CTCAE helps patients and clinicians with better documentation of symptomatic toxicities of chemotherapy, reducing the burden on physicians and improving patient satisfaction. Mobile app-based self-reporting empowers cancer patients undergoing treatment, improves their quality of life, and should be implemented in routine clinical practice. Wider implementation can lead to further optimised solutions.

Timely collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) decreases emergency department visits and hospitalizations and increases survival. However, little is known about the outcome predictivity of unpaid informal caregivers\' reporting using similar clinical outcome assessments.
The aim of this study is to assess whether caregivers and adults with cancer adhered to a planned schedule for electronically collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and if PROs were associated with future clinical events.
We developed 2 iPhone apps to collect PROs, one for patients with cancer and another for caregivers. We enrolled 52 patient-caregiver dyads from Kaiser Permanente Northern California in a nonrandomized study. Participants used the apps independently for 4 weeks. Specific clinical events were obtained from the patients\' electronic health records up to 6 months following the study. We used logistic and quasi-Poisson regression analyses to test associations between PROs and clinical events.
Participants completed 97% (251/260) of the planned Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) surveys and 98% (254/260) of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys. PRO-CTCAE surveys completed by caregivers were associated with patients\' hospitalizations or emergency department visits, grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, dose reductions (P<.05), and hospice referrals (P=.03). PROMIS surveys completed by caregivers were associated with hospice referrals (P=.02). PRO-CTCAE surveys completed by patients were not associated with any clinical events, but their baseline PROMIS surveys were associated with mortality (P=.03), while their antecedent or final PROMIS surveys were associated with all clinical events examined except for total days of treatment breaks.
In this study, caregivers and patients completed PROs using smartphone apps as requested. The association of caregiver PRO-CTCAE surveys with patient clinical events suggests that this is a feasible approach to reducing patient burden in clinical trial data collection and may help provide early information about increasing symptom severity.

OBJECTIVE: Gynecologic cancer chemotherapy impacts the quality of life (QOL) of patients, with lasting adverse events that may require treatment adjustments or discontinuation. Consequently, real-time symptom monitoring before outpatient visits has resulted in improved QOL for patients and extended survival times. This study investigated whether there are differences between electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PRO-CTCAE) and physician-assessed outcomes (NCI-CTCAE) evaluated in an outpatient setting in gynecologic cancer chemotherapy.
METHODS: The study was conducted on 50 patients who received their first chemotherapy treatment at St. Marianna University Hospital Obstetrics and Gynecology from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. PRO-CTCAE and NCI-CTCAE were evaluated at each instance of chemotherapy and 2 weeks after. The PRO-CTCAE was additionally collected weekly using e-PRO.
RESULTS: The values for \"Joint Pain,\" \"Nausea,\" \"Taste Disturbance,\" \"Constipation,\" \"Insomnia,\" \"Fatigue,\" \"Limb Edema,\" and \"Concentration Impairment\" were consistently higher in PRO-CTCAE than in NCI-CTCAE, indicating that physicians underestimated the severity of adverse events. In contrast, there was no significant difference in \"Peripheral Neuropathy,\" demonstrating that physicians had a good understanding of this condition in patients. The weekly responses obtained from e-PRO revealed that symptom exacerbations peaked outside of clinic visits.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated physicians tend to underestimate most adverse events. Moreover, the responses using e-PRO revealed peak symptom deterioration occurred outside of outpatient visits. This suggested that e-PRO and actions taken in response to them can improve patients\' QOL.

BACKGROUND: FDA\'s Project Optimus was developed in part to better identify appropriate dose and schedule of cancer therapeutics. The tabular method to summarize patients\' maximum toxicity in a clinical trial does not allow for ready comparison to the treatment\'s benefit. In this manuscript, we apply a simple tool, the weighted toxicity score (WTS), to trials involving lung cancer immunotherapy and chemotherapy, as well as those cited in a recent publication as examples of trials that represent successful reduction of the appropriate dose of anti-cancer agents.
METHODS: PubMed was queried for randomized controlled trials of therapy involving immune checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer. Trial data from studies highlighting initial success with dose adjustments after FDA approval also were assembled and analyzed according to the WTS procedure described previously, compared to clinical outcomes data.
RESULTS: The WTS provided, with the clinical outcome(s), a data pair that leads to easy interpretation of the expected benefit versus relative toxicity of studies involving immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy in lung cancers. The WTS was consistent with the conclusions of the primary studies, helping to quantitate the toxicity difference between treatments in a previously unavailable way.
CONCLUSIONS: The WTS provides a tool to show the cost in toxicity of therapy in a randomized clinical trial, with applicability to studies involving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or kinase-directed therapy. Inclusion of a running tally of WTS during conduct of a trial could serve as one means to adjust dosing or to provide feedback during data safety monitoring of a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To include the patient perspective in the assessment of adverse events in oncology, a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was developed by the US National Cancer Institute, the so called PRO-CTCAE. The objective of this study was the development of disease-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets for patients with breast cancer (BC), multiple myeloma (MM), and prostate cancer (PC).
METHODS: The cross-sectional survey was conducted at three German outpatient cancer centers. Prevalence and importance of the 78 PRO-CTCAE symptoms were assessed using a patient questionnaire. To select the most relevant PRO-CTCAE items for each tumor entity, symptoms were ranked based on patient answers.
RESULTS: 101 patients with BC, 107 with MM, and 66 with PC participated. The final item sets contained 21 symptoms (BC) or 19 symptoms (MM and PC), respectively. Eight symptoms (fatigue, muscle pain, insomnia, joint pain, general pain, dizziness, shortness of breath, and swelling) were represented in all three item sets. Fatigue was the symptom with the highest ranking across item sets followed by insomnia. Symptoms with the highest rankings represented in only one item set were symptoms affecting the urogenital system in the PC item set, blurred vision in the BC item set, and decreased appetite in the MM item set.
CONCLUSIONS: Individual PRO-CTCAE item sets for a German patient population were developed for the three tumor entities on the basis of patients\' differences in symptom profiles and perceptions. The quality and psychometric criteria of the newly compiled item sets should be evaluated in validation studies.