Huynh-Le Minh-Phuong, Zhang Zhe, Tran Phuoc T, DeWeese Theodore L, Song Daniel Y
Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Department of Oncology Biostatistics, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Dec 1;90(5):1076-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.08.014. Epub 2014 Oct 13.
To measure concordance among genitourinary radiation oncologists in using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading scales to grade rectal bleeding.
From June 2013 to January 2014, a Web-based survey was sent to 250 American and Canadian academic radiation oncologists who treat prostate cancer. Participants were provided 4 case vignettes in which patients received radiation therapy and developed rectal bleeding and were asked for management plans and to rate the bleeding according to NCI CTC v.4 and RTOG late toxicity grading (scales provided). In 2 cases, participants were also asked whether they would send the patient for colonoscopy. A multilevel, random intercept modeling approach was used to assess sources of variation (case, respondent) in toxicity grading to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement on a dichotomous grading scale (low grades 1-2 vs high grades 3-4) was also assessed, using the κ statistic for multiple respondents.
Seventy-two radiation oncologists (28%) completed the survey. Forty-seven (65%) reported having either written or been principal investigator on a study using these scales. Agreement between respondents was moderate (ICC 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.58) when using NCI CTC and fair using the RTOG scale (ICC 0.28, 95% CI 0.20-0.40). Respondents who chose an invasive management were more likely to select a higher toxicity grade (P<.0001). Using the dichotomous scale, we observed moderate agreement (κ = 0.42, 95% CI 0.40-0.44) with the NCI CTC scale, but only slight agreement with the RTOG scale (κ = 0.19, 95% CI 0.17-0.21).
Low interrater reliability was observed among radiation oncologists grading rectal bleeding using 2 common scales. Clearer definitions of late rectal bleeding toxicity should be constructed to reduce this variability and avoid ambiguity in both reporting and interpretation.
评估泌尿生殖系统放射肿瘤学家在使用美国国立癌症研究所通用毒性标准(NCI CTC)和放射治疗肿瘤学组(RTOG)分级量表对直肠出血进行分级时的一致性。
2013年6月至2014年1月,向250名治疗前列腺癌的美国和加拿大学术放射肿瘤学家发送了一项基于网络的调查。参与者收到4个病例 vignettes,其中患者接受了放射治疗并出现直肠出血,并被要求提供管理计划,并根据NCI CTC v.4和RTOG晚期毒性分级(提供的量表)对出血进行评分。在2个病例中,参与者还被问及是否会送患者进行结肠镜检查。采用多级随机截距建模方法评估毒性分级中变异来源(病例、受访者),以计算组内相关系数(ICC)。还使用多个受访者的κ统计量评估二分法分级量表(低级别1-2级与高级别3-4级)的一致性。
72名放射肿瘤学家(28%)完成了调查。47名(65%)报告曾撰写或以主要研究者身份参与使用这些量表的研究。使用NCI CTC时,受访者之间的一致性为中等(ICC 0.52,95%置信区间[CI]0.47-0.58),使用RTOG量表时为一般(ICC 0.28,95%CI 0.20-0.40)。选择侵入性管理的受访者更有可能选择更高的毒性等级(P<0.0001)。使用二分法量表时,我们观察到与NCI CTC量表有中等一致性(κ = 0.42,95%CI 0.40-0.44),但与RTOG量表只有轻微一致性(κ = 0.19,95%CI 0.17-0.21)。
在使用两种常用量表对直肠出血进行分级的放射肿瘤学家中,观察到评分者间信度较低。应构建更清晰的晚期直肠出血毒性定义,以减少这种变异性,并避免报告和解释中的模糊性。