Systematic Review of Radiation Therapy Toxicity Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Rectal Cancer: A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinician Toxicity Reporting.
Affiliation
Leeds Institute of Cancer & Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United KingdomIssue Date
2015-07-01
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
The use of multimodal treatments for rectal cancer has improved cancer-related outcomes but makes monitoring toxicity challenging. Optimizing future radiation therapy regimens requires collection and publication of detailed toxicity data. This review evaluated the quality of toxicity information provided in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radiation therapy in rectal cancer and focused on the difference between clinician-reported and patient-reported toxicity. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched (January 1995-July 2013) for RCTs reporting late toxicity in patients treated with regimens including preoperative (chemo)radiation therapy. Data on toxicity measures and information on toxicity reported were extracted using Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic recommendations. International Society for Quality of Life Research standards on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were used to evaluate the quality of patient-reported toxicity. Twenty-one RCT publications met inclusion criteria out of 4144 articles screened. All PRO studies reported higher rates of toxicity symptoms than clinician-reported studies and reported on a wider range and milder symptoms. No clinician-reported study published data on sexual dysfunction. Of the clinician-reported studies, 55% grouped toxicity data related to an organ system together (eg "Bowel"), and 45% presented data only on more-severe (grade ≥3) toxicity. In comparison, all toxicity grades were reported in 79% of PRO publications, and all studies (100%) presented individual symptom toxicity data (eg bowel urgency). However, PRO reporting quality was variable. Only 43% of PRO studies presented baseline data, 28% did not use any psychometrically validated instruments, and only 29% of studies described statistical methods for managing missing data. Analysis of these trials highlights the lack of reporting standards for adverse events and reveals the differences between clinician and patient reporting of toxicity. Recommendations for improving the quality of adverse event data collection are provided, with the aim of improving critical appraisal of outcomes for future studies.Citation
Systematic Review of Radiation Therapy Toxicity Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Rectal Cancer: A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinician Toxicity Reporting. 2015, 92 (3):555-567 Int J Radiat Oncol Biol PhysJournal
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, PhysicsDOI
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.021PubMed ID
26068490Type
ArticleLanguage
enISSN
1879-355Xae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.021
Scopus Count
Collections
Related articles
- Conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.
- Authors: Todd CL, Johnson EE, Stewart F, Wallace SA, Bryant A, Woodward S, Norton C
- Issue date: 2024 Oct 29
- Non-surgical interventions for late rectal problems (proctopathy) of radiotherapy in people who have received radiotherapy to the pelvis.
- Authors: van de Wetering FT, Verleye L, Andreyev HJ, Maher J, Vlayen J, Pieters BR, van Tienhoven G, Scholten RJ
- Issue date: 2016 Apr 25
- Interventions for the treatment of brain radionecrosis after radiotherapy or radiosurgery.
- Authors: Chung C, Bryant A, Brown PD
- Issue date: 2018 Jul 9
- Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.
- Authors: Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D
- Issue date: 2012 Nov 14
- Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
- Authors: Weibel S, Rücker G, Eberhart LH, Pace NL, Hartl HM, Jordan OL, Mayer D, Riemer M, Schaefer MS, Raj D, Backhaus I, Helf A, Schlesinger T, Kienbaum P, Kranke P
- Issue date: 2020 Oct 19