4.5 Review

Approach for Classification and Severity Grading of Long-term and Late-Onset Health Events among Childhood Cancer Survivors in the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 666-674

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0812

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Cancer Center [5P30CA021765-33]
  2. St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study [U01 CA195547]
  3. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Characterization of toxicity associated with cancer and its treatment is essential to quantify risk, inform optimization of therapeutic approaches for newly diagnosed patients, and guide health surveillance recommendations for long-term survivors. The NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) provides a common rubric for grading severity of adverse outcomes in cancer patients that is widely used in clinical trials. The CTCAE has also been used to assess late cancer treatment-related morbidity but is not fully representative of the spectrum of events experienced by pediatric and aging adult survivors of childhood cancer. Also, CTCAE characterization does not routinely integrate detailed patient-reported and medical outcomes data available from clinically assessed cohorts. To address these deficiencies, we standardized the severity grading of long-term and late-onset health events applicable to childhood cancer survivors across their lifespan by modifying the existing CTCAE v4.03 criteria and aligning grading rubrics from other sources for chronic conditions not included or optimally addressed in the CTCAE v4.03. This article describes the methods of late toxicity assessment used in the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study, a clinically assessed cohort in which data from multiple diagnostic modalities and patient-reported outcomes are ascertained. (C) 2016 AACR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available