A study demonstrating users' preference for the adapted-REQUITE patient-reported outcome questionnaire over PRO-CTCAE(®) in patients with lung cancer
Name:
fonc-14-1328871 (1).pdf
Size:
492.3Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Found with Open Access Button
Authors
Jordan, ThomasNuamek, Thitikorn
Fornacon-Wood, Isabella
Califano, Raffaele
Coote, Joanna
Harris, Margaret
Mistry, Hitesh
Taylor, Paul
Woolf, David
Faivre-Finn, Corinne
Affiliation
Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.Issue Date
2024
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to enhance the accuracy of symptom collection and improve overall survival and quality of life. This is the first study comparing concordance and patient preference for two PRO tools: Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE(®)) and the adapted-REQUITE Lung Questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with lung cancer were recruited to the study while attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer centre. Clinician-reported outcomes were generated through initial patient assessment with CTCAE v4.03. Participants then completed the PRO-CTCAE(®) and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Concordance between the 2 questionnaires was assessed by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient. PRO-CTCAE(®) and CTCAE concordance was demonstrated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient from the linear predictors of an ordinal logistic regression. P-values were also calculated. RESULTS: Out of 74 patients approached, 65 provided written informed consent to participate in the study. 63 (96.9%) patients completed both PRO-CTCAE(®) and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Pearson correlation coefficient between PRO tools was 0.8-0.83 (p <.001). Correlation between CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE(®) ranged between 0.66-0.82 (p <.001). Adapted-REQUITE and CTCAE correlation was higher for all symptoms ranging between 0.79-0.91 (p <.001). Acceptable discrepancies within one grade were present in 96.8%-100% of symptom domains for REQUITE and in 92.1%-96.8% for all domains in the PRO-CTCAE(®). 54% of the total participant cohort favored the adapted-REQUITE questionnaire due to reduced subjectivity in the questions and ease of use. CONCLUSION: The adapted-REQUITE questionnaire has shown a superior correlation to clinician-reported outcomes and higher patient preference than the PRO-CTCAE(®). The results of this study suggest the use of the REQUITE questionnaire for patients with lung cancer in routine clinical practice.Citation
Jordan T, Nuamek T, Fornacon-Wood I, Califano R, Coote J, Harris M, et al. A study demonstrating users' preference for the adapted-REQUITE patient-reported outcome questionnaire over PRO-CTCAE(®) in patients with lung cancer. Frontiers in oncology. 2024;14:1328871. PubMed PMID: 38660130. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC11039780. Epub 2024/04/25. eng.Journal
Frontiers in OncologyDOI
10.3389/fonc.2024.1328871PubMed ID
38660130Additional Links
https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1328871Type
ArticleLanguage
enae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.3389/fonc.2024.1328871
Scopus Count
Collections
Related articles
- Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients.
- Authors: Baeksted C, Pappot H, Nissen A, Hjollund NH, Mitchell SA, Basch E, Bidstrup PE, Dalton SO, Johansen C
- Issue date: 2017
- Acceptability of Routine Evaluations Using Patient-Reported Outcomes of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Other Patient-Reported Symptom Outcome Tools in Cancer Outpatients: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience.
- Authors: Albaba H, Barnes TA, Veitch Z, Brown MC, Shakik S, Su S, Naik H, Wang T, Liang M, Perez-Cosio A, Eng L, Mittmann N, Xu W, Howell D, Liu G
- Issue date: 2019 Nov
- The Japanese version of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE): psychometric validation and discordance between clinician and patient assessments of adverse events.
- Authors: Kawaguchi T, Azuma K, Sano M, Kim S, Kawahara Y, Sano Y, Shimodaira T, Ishibashi K, Miyaji T, Basch E, Yamaguchi T
- Issue date: 2017
- Reliability and Validity of the Korean Language Version of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.
- Authors: Yoon J, Sim SH, Kang D, Han G, Kim Y, Ahn J, Oh D, Lee ES, Kong SY, Cho J, Mitchell SA
- Issue date: 2020 May
- Cultural adaptation of the Italian version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (PRO-CTCAE®).
- Authors: Caminiti C, Bryce J, Riva S, Ng D, Diodati F, Iezzi E, Sparavigna L, Novello S, Porta C, Del Mastro L, Procopio G, Cinieri S, Falzetta A, Calabrò F, Lorusso V, Cogoni AA, Tortora G, Maruzzo M, Passalacqua R, Cognetti F, Adamo V, Capelletto E, Ferrari A, Bagnalasta M, Bassi M, Nicelli A, De Persis D, D'Acunti A, Iannelli Patient E, Perrone F, Mitchell SA
- Issue date: 2023 Jun