Comparing symptom reporting by prostate cancer patients and healthcare professionals in the international multicentre REQUITE study.
Adverse events
Agreement
Patient-reported outcomes
Prostate cancer
Radiotherapy
Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
received:
14
07
2022
revised:
18
11
2022
accepted:
20
11
2022
pubmed:
29
11
2022
medline:
8
2
2023
entrez:
28
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Previous studies showed that healthcare professionals and patients had only moderate to low agreement on their assessment of treatment-related symptoms. We aimed to determine the levels of agreement in a large cohort of prostate cancer patients. Analyses were made of data from 1,756 prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy (RT) and/or brachytherapy in Europe and the USA and recruited into the prospective multicentre observational REQUITE study. Eleven pelvic symptoms at the end of RT were compared after translating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into CTCAE-based healthcare professional ratings. Gwet's AC2 agreement coefficient and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each symptom. To compare severity of grading between patients and healthcare professionals, percent agreement and deviations for each symptom were graphically depicted. Stratified and sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify potential influencing factors and to assess heterogeneity and robustness of results. The agreement for the 11 pelvic symptoms varied from very good (AC2 > 0.8: haematuria, rectal bleeding, management of sphincter control) to poor agreement (AC2 ≤ 0.2: proctitis and urinary urgency). Fatigue had a negative impact on the agreement. Patients tended to grade symptoms more severely than healthcare professionals. Information on sexual dysfunction was missing more frequently in healthcare professional assessment than PROs. Agreement was better for observable than subjective symptoms, with patients usually grading symptoms more severely than healthcare professionals. Our findings emphasize that PROs should complement symptom assessment by healthcare professionals and be taken into consideration for clinical decision-making to incorporate the patient perspective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36442608
pii: S0167-8140(22)04563-7
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.11.015
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
109426Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Conflict of Interest D. Azria: none related to the current manuscript. Outside the current manuscript: involved in the creation of the start-up NovaGray in 2015. D. De Ruysscher: none related to the current manuscript. Outside the current manuscript: advisory board of Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck/Pfizer, Celgene, Noxxon, Mologen and has received investigator initiated grants from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim and Astra-Zeneca. E. Sperk: none related to the current manuscript. Outside the current manuscript: Lecture honoraria Zeiss Meditec Ag, travel support Zeiss Meditec AG.