Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun:207:110881.
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110881. Epub 2025 Apr 10.

Impact of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) evolution on toxicity scoring in gynaecological radiotherapy

Affiliations
Free article

Impact of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) evolution on toxicity scoring in gynaecological radiotherapy

Sofia Spampinato et al. Radiother Oncol. 2025 Jun.
Free article

Abstract

Purpose: The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the established toxicity scoring system that assigns severity grades (G1 = mild to G5 = death) to Adverse Events (AEs). Compared to CTCAE v3.0 (2006), updated versions introduced changes in severity grade definitions. This study evaluated changes between v3.0 and v5.0 (2017) for AEs in gynaecological radiotherapy.

Material and methods: After selecting AEs relevant for gynaecological radiotherapy in v3.0, changes in severity grades were identified using CTCAE v3.0-to-v5.0 mapping tables. Six radiation oncologists (ROs) evaluated severity grade definitions for changes in: clinical interpretation, subjective (patient-reported symptoms) and objective (details on medication/intervention) information, and expected severe (≥G3) events. Agreement was based on at least five (≥5)ROs.

Results: Gastrointestinal, urinary, reproductive, general and injury/musculoskeletal AEs were selected (n = 118). G4 definitions in v5.0 were removed in 22 % of AEs. ≥5ROs agreed on changes affecting clinical interpretation especially for G2 (31 %) and G3 (30 %). For subjective information, 18 % of G2 and 15 % of G3 were judged relying more on patient-reported symptoms. Less objective information was found in 51 % of G3 definitions. Variability in agreement was observed especially for subjective information in G3 and expected ≥G3 events.

Conclusion: This analysis revealed that severity grade definitions in v3.0 and v5.0 for AEs in gynaecological radiotherapy present changes with potential impact on scoring in clinical studies. Notably, 22 % of AEs in v5.0 no longer have G4 defined, and G3 definitions often include fewer details on medication/intervention. Variability in ROs' interpretations is frequently observed, highlighting the need for education to standardise toxicity scoring.

Keywords: Clinical trials; Education in radiation oncology; Patient-reported outcome; Quality of life; Safety; Tolerability; Toxicity scoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

LinkOut - more resources