Suppr超能文献

WHO、RTOG 和 CTCAE v4.0 分级标准评估头颈部癌症放化疗相关性口腔黏膜炎的一致性。

Concordance of the WHO, RTOG, and CTCAE v4.0 grading scales for the evaluation of oral mucositis associated with chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers.

机构信息

Primary Endpoint Solutions, Waltham, MA, USA.

Department of Orofacial Sciences, University of California San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Ave, Suite 512A, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.

出版信息

Support Care Cancer. 2021 Oct;29(10):6061-6068. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06177-x. Epub 2021 Mar 31.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The ability to consistently and accurately assess oral mucositis (OM) is critical to descriptions of its incidence and severity and in evaluating the effectiveness of potential interventions. The lack of a single grading scale compounds outcome interpretation. Consequently, we assessed the concordance of three of the most commonly used OM grading criteria (World Health Organization (WHO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE).

METHODS

Data was evaluated from two hundred patients with oropharyngeal or oral cavity cancers who underwent chemoradiation therapy and were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which trained assessors evaluated patients twice weekly. WHO, RTOG, and CTCAE scores were assigned centrally by independent evaluators blinded to the study group. Concordance among the three scales for all OM scores and severe OM scores (score ≥ 3) was defined as the percentage agreement and measured using Cohen's weighted Kappa.

RESULTS

Of 3,578 OM assessments, 57% had identical scores for all three scales. When any score was considered, the concordance between WHO and RTOG scales was 71% (kappa 0.58; 95%CI: 0.56-0.60), 62% for the WHO and CTCAE scales (kappa 0.46; 95%CI: 0.44-0.48) and 78% for the CTCAE and RTOG scales (kappa 0.69; 95%CI: 0.68-0.71). When patients had severe OM (WHO score ≥ 3), 99.6% (521/523) of the CTCAE OM assessments had scores of 3 or 4 (kappa 0.98; 95%CI: 0.98-0.999) and 97.7% of the RTOG ones (511/523) had scores of 3 or 4 (kappa 0.69; 95%CI: 0.62-0.75). Among patients who had a WHO score of 4, 31.7% (63/199) and 96.0% (196/199) of patients had RTOG or CTCAE scores of 2 or 3, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordance was seen with patients who exhibited mild to moderate OM or most severe OM (grade 4) as described by WHO criteria. Whereas scale selection seems less critical in studies in which general "severe mucositis" is the primary outcome, it is particularly important in accurately describing OM's clinical trajectory and the frequency and impact in its most severe forms.

摘要

背景

能够持续、准确地评估口腔黏膜炎(OM)对于描述其发生率和严重程度以及评估潜在干预措施的有效性至关重要。缺乏单一的分级量表使得结果解释变得复杂。因此,我们评估了三种最常用的 OM 分级标准(世界卫生组织(WHO)、放射治疗肿瘤学组(RTOG)和不良事件通用术语标准(CTCAE))的一致性。

方法

对 200 名接受放化疗的口咽或口腔癌患者的数据进行了评估,这些患者参加了一项双盲、随机、安慰剂对照试验,训练有素的评估者每周对患者进行两次评估。WHO、RTOG 和 CTCAE 评分由独立评估者在中央进行评估,他们对研究组不知情。将三种量表的所有 OM 评分和严重 OM 评分(评分≥3)的一致性定义为百分比一致性,并使用 Cohen 的加权 Kappa 进行测量。

结果

在 3578 次 OM 评估中,57%的患者三种量表的评分完全相同。当考虑任何评分时,WHO 量表和 RTOG 量表之间的一致性为 71%(kappa 0.58;95%CI:0.56-0.60),WHO 量表和 CTCAE 量表之间为 62%(kappa 0.46;95%CI:0.44-0.48),CTCAE 量表和 RTOG 量表之间为 78%(kappa 0.69;95%CI:0.68-0.71)。当患者出现严重 OM(WHO 评分≥3)时,99.6%(521/523)的 CTCAE OM 评估得分为 3 或 4(kappa 0.98;95%CI:0.98-0.999),97.7%(511/523)的 RTOG 评估得分为 3 或 4(kappa 0.69;95%CI:0.62-0.75)。在 WHO 评分为 4 的患者中,31.7%(63/199)和 96.0%(196/199)的患者 RTOG 或 CTCAE 评分为 2 或 3。

结论

在 WHO 标准描述的轻度至中度 OM 或最严重 OM(等级 4)患者中观察到不一致。虽然在主要结局为“严重黏膜炎”的研究中,量表选择似乎不太重要,但在准确描述 OM 的临床轨迹及其最严重形式的频率和影响方面,量表选择非常重要。

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