Reliability and validity of PRO-CTCAE® daily reporting with a 24-hour recall period.

PURPOSE: The standard recall period for the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) is the past 7 days, but there are contexts where a 24-hour recall may be desirable. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate the reliability and validity of a subset of PRO-CTCAE items captured using a 24-hour recall. METHODS: 27 PRO-CTCAE items representing 14 symptomatic adverse events (AEs) were collected using both a 24-hour recall (24 h) and the standard 7 day recall (7d) in a sample of patients receiving active cancer treatment (n = 113). Using data captured with a PRO-CTCAE-24h on days 6 and 7, and 20 and 21, we computed intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC); an ICC ≥ 0.70 was interpreted as demonstrating high test-retest reliability. Correlations between PRO-CTCAE-24h items on day 7 and conceptually relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains were examined. In responsiveness analysis, patients were deemed changed if they had a one-point or greater change in the corresponding PRO-CTCAE-7d item (from week 0 to week 1). RESULTS: PRO-CTCAE-24h captured on two consecutive days demonstrated that 21 of 27 items (78%) had ICCs ≥ 0.70 (day 6/7 median ICC 0.76), (day 20/21 median ICC 0.84). Median correlation between attributes within a common AE was 0.75, and the median correlation between conceptually relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and PRO-CTCAE-24 h items captured on day 7 was 0.44. In the analysis of responsiveness to change, the median standardized response mean (SRM) for patients with improvement was - 0.52 and that for patients with worsening was 0.71. CONCLUSION: A 24-hour recall period for PRO-CTCAE items has acceptable measurement properties and can inform day-to-day variations in symptomatic AEs when daily PRO-CTCAE administration is implemented in a clinical trial.

Differential effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention based on the age of patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Symptom monitoring interventions enhance patient outcomes, including quality of life (QoL), health care utilization, and survival, but it remains unclear whether older and younger patients with cancer derive similar benefits. We explored whether age moderates the improved outcomes seen with an outpatient electronic symptom monitoring intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of 766 patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors. Patients received an electronic symptom monitoring intervention integrated with oncology care or usual oncology care alone. The intervention consisted of patients reporting their symptoms, which were provided to their physicians at clinic visits, and nurses receiving alerts for severe/worsening symptoms. We used regression models to determine whether age (older or younger than 70 years) moderated the effects of the intervention on QoL (EuroQol EQ-5D), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Enrollment rates for younger (589/777 = 75.8%) and older (177/230 = 77.0%) patients did not differ. Older patients (median age = 75 years, range 70-91 years) were more likely to have an education level of high school or less (26.6% versus 20.9%, P = 0.029) and to be computer inexperienced (50.3% versus 23.4%, P < 0.001) compared with younger patients (median age = 58 years, range 26-69 years). Younger patients receiving the symptom monitoring intervention experienced lower risk of ER visits [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, P = 0.011] and improved survival (HR = 0.76, P = 0.011) compared with younger patients receiving usual care. However, older patients did not experience significantly lower risk of ER visits (HR = 0.90, P = 0.613) or improved survival (HR = 1.06, P = 0.753) with the intervention. We found no moderation effects based on age for QoL and risk of hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced cancer, age moderated the effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention on the risk of ER visits and survival, but not QoL. Symptom monitoring interventions may need to be tailored to the unique needs of older adults with cancer.