This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Trotti, A. Articles by Basch, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Trotti, A. Articles by Basch, E.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and the Evolution of Adverse Event Reporting in Oncology

Andy Trotti, A. Dimitrios Colevas, Ann Setser, Ethan Basch

From the Division of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center at University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; Division of Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; and Health Outcomes Research Group, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

Address reprint requests to Andy Trotti, MD, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr, Mod 9 RT, Tampa, FL 33612-9416; e-mail: andy.trotti{at}moffitt.org

Adverse event (AE) reporting in oncology has evolved from informal descriptions to a highly systematized process. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the predominant system for describing the severity of AEs commonly encountered in oncology clinical trials. CTCAE clinical descriptors have been developed empirically during more than 30 years of use. The method of data collection is clinician based. Limitations of the CTC system include potential for incomplete reporting and limited guidance on data analysis and presentation methods. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) is a comprehensive medical terminology system used for regulatory reporting and drug labeling. MedDRA does not provide for severity ranking of AEs. CTC-based data presentations are the primary method of AE data reporting used in scientific journals and oncology meetings. Patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) cover the subjective domain of AEs. Exploratory work suggests PROs can be used with a high degree of patient engagement and compliance. Additional studies are needed to determine how PROs can be used to complement current AE reporting systems. Potential models for integrating PROs into AE reporting are described in this review. AE reporting methods will continue to evolve in response to changing therapies and growing interest in measuring the impact of cancer treatment on health status. Although integration of PROs into AE reporting may ultimately improve the comprehensiveness and quality of collected data, it may also increase the administrative burden and cost of conducting trials. Therefore, care must be used when developing health outcomes and safety data collection plans.

Supported in part by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Lipscomb, B. B. Reeve, S. B. Clauser, J. S. Abrams, D. Watkins Bruner, L. B. Burke, A. M. Denicoff, P. A. Ganz, K. Gondek, L. M. Minasian, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials: Taking Stock, Moving Forward J. Clin. Oncol., November 10, 2007; 25(32): 5133 - 5140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]