Suppr超能文献

多中心癌症临床试验中患者报告症状性不良事件的可行性评估。

Feasibility Assessment of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

出版信息

JAMA Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;3(8):1043-1050. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6749.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014.

RESULTS

Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

摘要

重要性

在癌症临床试验中,由研究者而非患者报告有症状的不良反应 (AE),如恶心。目前越来越有兴趣通过患者报告的结局 (PRO) 问卷收集有症状的 AE 数据,但在多中心试验中实施这一方法是否可行尚不清楚。

目的

调查患者是否愿意并有能力在多中心试验中报告其有症状的 AE。

设计、地点和参与者:共邀请了 361 名连续入组的美国 9 项多中心癌症治疗试验的患者,在连续 5 次就诊时,使用 PRO 改编版国家癌症研究所的不良事件通用术语标准 (CTCAE),通过平板电脑自行报告 13 种常见有症状的 AE。通过记录未完成自我报告的原因来跟踪患者的依从性。采用加权κ统计分析患者和研究者报告的 AE 之间的一致性。通过调查了解患者和研究者的观点。研究于 2007 年 3 月 15 日至 2011 年 8 月 11 日进行。数据分析于 2013 年 8 月 9 日至 2014 年 3 月 21 日进行。

结果

在受邀参与的 361 名患者中,285 人入组,中位年龄 57 岁(范围:24-88 岁),202 名(74.3%)女性,241 名(85.5%)为白人,73 名(26.8%)受教育程度在高中及以下,176 名(64.7%)经常使用互联网(因缺失数据,各分母不同)。在所有患者和试验中,有 1280 次就诊机会让患者自行报告(即患者在就诊时存活且入组治疗试验)。共完成 1202 次自我报告(总体依从率为 93.9%)。依从性在基线时最高,随后逐渐下降(就诊 1:100%;就诊 2:96%;就诊 3:95%;就诊 4:91%;就诊 5:85%)。未完成 PRO 报告的原因包括机构错误(48 例中的 27 例,占 56.3%),如工作人员在就诊时忘记带电脑给患者;8 例(16.7%)患者感到“太不适”;8 例(16.7%)患者拒绝;5 例(10.4%)患者因互联网连接问题。对于大多数症状,患者与研究者的 CTCAE 一致性为中度或更差(大多数κ值<0.05),与研究者相比,患者报告的 AE 更多。大多数患者认为该系统易于使用(234 例[93.2%])且有用(230 例[93.1%]),研究者认为患者报告的 AE 有用(133 例[94.3%])且准确(119 例[83.2%])。

结论和相关性

多中心癌症试验的参与者大多数就诊时愿意并有能力报告自己的有症状 AE,且报告的 AE 多于研究者。这种方法可能会提高癌症试验中 AE 报告的准确性。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

6
Temporal trends in symptom experience predict the accuracy of recall PROs.症状体验的时间趋势可预测 PRO 回忆的准确性。
J Psychosom Res. 2013 Aug;75(2):160-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.06.006. Epub 2013 Jul 6.
9
Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians.临床医生报告不良症状事件的可靠性。
Qual Life Res. 2012 Sep;21(7):1159-64. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0031-4. Epub 2011 Oct 8.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验