Dataset Information

Dutch translation and linguistic validation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) is a library of items for assessing symptomatic adverse events by patient self-report in oncology trials. The aim of this multi-site study was to generate and linguistically validate a Dutch language version of the U.S. PRO-CTCAE for use in the Netherlands and Dutch-speaking Belgium. METHODS:All 124 items in the PRO-CTCAE item library were translated into Dutch using established translation procedures, including dual forward translations, reconciliation, back-translation, reconciliation of the source with the back-translation, and expert reviews. Harmonization of the translation for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium was achieved via an iterative review process in which the translations were discussed and reconciled by consensus of PRO experts, clinicians and bilingual Dutch translators. The translated PRO-CTCAE™ items were completed by a geographically-diverse sample of Dutch speaking patients from the Netherlands (n?=?40) and Belgium (n?=?60), and who were currently receiving or who had recently completed cancer-directed therapy. Patients were diverse with respect to age, sex, educational attainment, and cancer diagnosis. Cognitive debriefing, using a semi-structured interview guide, probed for comprehension and clarity of PRO-CTCAE symptom terms, attributes (e.g. frequency, severity, interference), response choices, and understanding of 'at its worst' and 'in the last 7 days'. Items for which the patient data indicated possible difficulties were considered for revision. RESULTS:Three items underwent minor phrasing revision and retesting was not deemed necessary. The symptom term for stretch marks was poorly understood by 12.5% of participants, and this item was revised to include parenthetical phrasing. It was retested with 10 participants from Belgium (n?=?5) and the Netherlands (n?=?5) and demonstrated acceptable comprehension. CONCLUSIONS:The Dutch language version of PRO-CTCAE has been successfully developed and linguistically validated for use in oncology studies in the Netherlands and Dutch-speaking Belgium. Extending the availability of NCI PRO-CTCAE in languages beyond English increases international consistency in the capture of Patient-Reported outcomes in patients participating in cancer clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Veldhuijzen E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7538479 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dutch translation and linguistic validation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™).

Veldhuijzen Evalien E Walraven Iris I Mitchell Sandra A SA Moore Elizabeth Yohe EY McKown Shawn M SM Lauritzen Matthew M Kim Katherine J KJ Belderbos José S A JSA Aaronson Neil K NK

Journal of patient-reported outcomes 20201006 1

<h4>Background</h4>The U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) is a library of items for assessing symptomatic adverse events by patient self-report in oncology trials. The aim of this multi-site study was to generate and linguistically validate a Dutch language version of the U.S. PRO-CTCAE for use in the Netherlands and Dutch-speaking Belgium.<h4>Methods</h4>All 124 items in the PRO-CTCAE item library ...[more]

PMID: 33025309

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntegrating the patient's perspective has become an increasingly important component of adverse event reporting. The National Cancer Institute has developed a Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™). This instrument has been translated into German and linguistically validated; however, its quantitative measurement properties have not been evaluated.Patients and methodsA German language survey that included 31 PRO-CTCAE items, as well as the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire (OMDQ), was distributed at 10 cancer treatment settings in Germany and Austria. Item quality was assessed by analysis of acceptability and comprehensibility. Reliability was evaluated by using Cronbach's' alpha and validity by principal components analysis (PCA), multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) and known groups validity techniques.ResultsOf 660 surveys distributed to the study centres, 271 were returned (return rate 41%), and data from 262 were available for analysis. Participants' median age was 59.7 years, and 69.5% of the patients were female. Analysis of item quality supported the comprehensibility of the 31 PRO-CTCAE items. Reliability was very good; Cronbach's' alpha correlation coefficients were >0.9 for almost all item clusters. Construct validity of the PRO-CTCAE core item set was shown by identifying 10 conceptually meaningful item clusters via PCA. Moreover, construct validity was confirmed by the MTMM: monotrait-heteromethod comparison showed 100% high correlation, whereas heterotrait-monomethod comparison indicated 0% high correlation. Known groups validity was supported; PRO-CTCAE scores were significantly lower for those with impaired versus preserved health-related quality of life.ConclusionA set of 31 items drawn from the German PRO-CTCAE item library demonstrated favourable measurement properties. These findings add to the body of evidence that PRO-CTCAE provides a rigorous method to capture patient self-reports of symptomatic toxicity for use in cancer clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested.MethodsA five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443).ResultsIn Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation.ConclusionA composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

Project description:ImportanceTo integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).ObjectiveTo assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30).ResultsA total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants' median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P<.05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P<.05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r=0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P≤.006).Conclusions and relevanceEvidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Project description:The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patient-reported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the "PRO-CTCAE." The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI's cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic self-reporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials.

Project description:PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system.Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0-4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed.103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55-0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62-0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60-0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ?0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS?=?-0.04 [-0.16-0.22]; tablet vs paper = -0.02 [-0.11-0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [-0.07-0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/-0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported "no problems" responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper.Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration.NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The study sought to describe patient-entered supplemental information on symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical research reported via a National Cancer Institute software system and examine the feasibility of mapping these entries to established terminologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients in 3 multicenter trials electronically completed surveys during cancer treatment. Each survey included a prespecified subset of items from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Upon completion of the survey items, patients could add supplemental symptomatic AE information in a free text box. As patients typed into the box, structured dropdown terms could be selected from the PRO-CTCAE item library or Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), or patients could type unstructured free text for submission. RESULTS:Data were pooled from 1760 participants (48% women; 78% White) who completed 8892 surveys, of which 2387 (26.8%) included supplemental symptomatic AE information. Overall, 1024 (58%) patients entered supplemental information at least once, with an average of 2.3 per patient per study. This encompassed 1474 of 8892 (16.6%) dropdowns and 913 of 8892 (10.3%) unstructured free text entries. One-third of the unstructured free text entries (32%) could be mapped post hoc to a PRO-CTCAE term and 68% to a MedDRA term. DISCUSSION:Participants frequently added supplemental information beyond study-specific survey items. Almost half selected a structured dropdown term, although many opted to submit unstructured free text entries. Most free text entries could be mapped post hoc to PRO-CTCAE or MedDRA terms, suggesting opportunities to enhance the system to perform real-time mapping for AE reporting. CONCLUSIONS:Patient reporting of symptomatic AEs using a text box functionality with mapping to existing terminologies is both feasible and informative.

Project description:BackgroundThe pediatric patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse event measure was developed and validated for use in pediatric cancer clinical trials to better capture the symptom experiences through direct self-report. The study aim was to develop and validate a Swahili language version of the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse event measure.MethodsThe pediatric version of 15 core symptom adverse events, and the corresponding questions, were selected from the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse event library, then forward and back translated into Swahili by bilingual translators. The translated items were further refined using concurrent cognitive interviewing. Each round of interviews included five children, ages 8-17 years-old, receiving cancer therapy at Bugando Medical Centre, the cancer referral hospital for Northwest Tanzania, and continued until at least 80% of participants understood the question.ResultsThree rounds of cognitive interviews were completed involving 13 patients and 5 caregivers. Among patients, 50% of questions (19/38) were fully comprehended after the first interview round. Two Adverse Events (anxiety and peripheral neuropathy) were the most difficult for participants to understand, associated with education level and experience. Goal comprehension was achieved after three rounds of interviews with no further revisions required. All parents in the first cognitive interview group comprehended the survey, with no additional revisions.ConclusionA Swahili patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse event was effective in eliciting patient-reported Adverse Events related to cancer treatment, with good comprehension for children aged 8-17 years. This survey is important to incorporate patient self-reporting of symptomatic toxicities and is an effective tool to increase capacity for pediatric cancer clinical trials throughout East Africa, further reducing global disparities in cancer care.

Dataset Information

Dutch translation and linguistic validation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™).

Publications

Dutch translation and linguistic validation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets