Start Your Search
MA08 - Pawing the Way to Improve Outcomes in Stage III NSCLC (ID 127)
- Event: WCLC 2019
- Type: Mini Oral Session
- Track: Treatment of Locoregional Disease - NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Now Available
MA08.07 - The Concordance Between Patient Reported Outcomes and Clinician Reported Outcomes During Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer Patients (Now Available) (ID 2507)
15:15 - 16:45 | Author(s): Laura Roose
Capturing information on toxicity in (non-)small cell lung cancer patients receiving radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, is crucial for optimal symptom management. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) have the potential to improve toxicity detection by adding direct information from the patient perspective. The aim of this study is therefore to determine the predictive and additional value of PROs on prospectively scored clinician reported toxicity.Method
An observational study was performed in lung cancer patients (n=111) treated with (chemo)radiation with curative intent. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC LC-13 questionnaires were used to score PROs on a scale of 0-100 for a selection of commonly occurring toxicities (i.e. dysphagia, dyspnea, anorexia, fatigue, cough and nausea). Clinicians prospectively scored the maximum toxicity during, and at the end of treatment using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to evaluate the performance (i.e. discrimination) of PROs on predicting clinician scored CTCAE toxicity (grade ≥2). Furthermore, cut-off points were determined from the ROC-curve on the basis of the best trade‐off values between sensitivity and specificity (0,5). Validity of the model was assessed with the ability to predict the number of grade ≥2 toxicities (calibration).Result
Assessment of predictive performance in our cohort demonstrated a good fit for anorexia (AUC: 0,810 95% CI 0,699 to 0,921) and dysphagia (AUC: 0,828 95% CI 0,743 to 0,914) with sensitivity scores of 85,7%, 67,4% and specificity scores of 74,0% and 92,6% respectively. Both dyspnoea (AUC: 0,765 95% CI 0,60 to 0,910) and nausea (AUC: 0,745, 95% CI 0,548 to 0,942) showed a fair fit with sensitivity score of 74,1% for both toxicities and specificity of 69,1% and 68,3% respectively. A poor fit was found for cough (AUC: 0,667 95% CI 0,495-0,839) with a sensitivity of 55,6% and specificity of 30,4%. The model failed to discriminate for fatigue (AUC: 0,507 95% CI 0,368-0,645). Calibration showed that clinician based CTCAE toxicities substantially underestimated all PRO-based toxicities.Conclusion
This study has identified that patient reported toxicities and clinician reported toxicities do not always concord. Only anorexia and dysphagia showed good agreement, while for the other toxicities, the agreement was only fair to poor. Furthermore, we showed that clinicians substancially underreport the existence of toxicities. This study adds to the growing body of evidence indicating the potential beneficial role of using PRO-based toxicity reporting in clinical cancer care for lung cancer.
Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.