Concordance of patient- and clinician-reported outcomes of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer
- PMID: 39495339
- DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08966-6
Concordance of patient- and clinician-reported outcomes of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer
Abstract
Background and purpose: The study evaluated the concordance between patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and clinician-reported outcomes (CRO) of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) symptoms following adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage and locally advanced breast cancer.
Material and methods: This is a secondary analysis of a multi-center randomized phase 3 trial (376 patients). Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to compare the Skin Symptom Assessment (SSA) independently reported by both patients and clinicians. Concordance between patient- and clinician-reported SSAs for RD symptoms was measured by percent concordance, concordance index (C-statistic), and Cohen's Kappa. Analyses were performed across all patients in the original modified intention-to-treat analysis and those with only grade 2-3 (CTCAE) RD.
Results: PROs were significantly more severe than CROs across all RD symptoms (Odds Ratio [OR] > 1; p < 0.0001). Pigmentation (OR 5.4), blistering/peeling (OR 4.0), and pain/soreness (OR 3.9) were the most differentially reported symptoms. Poor-to-low concordance was noted between patient- and clinician-reported SSAs for all RD symptoms for the entire cohort (percent concordance < 50%, C-statistic 0.52-0.63, Cohen's Kappa 13.9-23.4%) and those with grade 2-3 RD (percent concordance < 50%, C-statistic 0.56-0.66, Cohen's Kappa 2.0-24.5%). Similarly, poor-to-low concordance was noted in both Mepitel film and standard-of-care arms.
Conclusion: PROs and CROs have poor concordance in breast RD, and patients report worse outcomes than clinicians, regardless of RD severity or prophylaxis. PROs must be further integrated into routine clinical practice and clinical trial design to reduce the risk of underreporting symptoms.
Keywords: Breast cancer; Mepitel film; Patient-reported outcome; Radiation dermatitis; Skin toxicity.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Di Maio M, Basch E, Denis F et al (2022) The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO clinical practice guideline. Ann Oncol 33(9):878–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.007 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Flores LT, Bennett AV, Law EB, Hajj C, Griffith MP, Goodman KA (2012) Patient versus clinician symptom reporting during chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(4_suppl):646. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.30.4_suppl.646 - DOI
-
- Fromme EK, Eilers KM, Mori M, Hsieh YC, Beer TM (2004) How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the quality-of-life questionnaire C30. J Clin Oncol 22(17):3485–3490. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.03.025 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Petersen MA, Larsen H, Pedersen L, Sonne N, Groenvold M (2006) Assessing health-related quality of life in palliative care: comparing patient and physician assessments. Eur J Cancer 42(8):1159–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.032 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Laugsand EA, Sprangers MA, Bjordal K, Skorpen F, Kaasa S, Klepstad P (2010) Health care providers underestimate symptom intensities of cancer patients: a multicenter European study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 8:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-104 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous