4.7 Article

A tailored phase I-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey to capture the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 129, 期 4, 页码 612-619

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02307-w

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes the development of a tailored survey based on the National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE, specifically designed for collecting patient perspectives on symptomatic adverse events in oncology phase I trials. The survey represents the first PRO tool developed specifically for assessing tolerability in the phase I oncology population.
BackgroundPatient perspectives are fundamental to defining tolerability of investigational anti-neoplastic therapies in clinical trials. Phase I trials present a unique challenge in designing tools for efficiently collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) given the difficulty of anticipating adverse events of relevance. However, phase I trials also offer an opportunity for investigators to optimize drug dosing based on tolerability for future larger-scale trials and in eventual clinical practice. Existing tools for comprehensively capturing PROs are generally cumbersome and are not routinely used in phase I trials.MethodsHere, we describe the creation of a tailored survey based on the National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE for collecting patients' perspectives on symptomatic adverse events in phase I trials in oncology.ResultsWe describe our stepwise approach to condensing the original 78-symptom library into a modified 30 term core list of symptoms which can be efficiently applied. We further show that our tailored survey aligns with phase I trialists' perspectives on symptoms of relevance.ConclusionsThis tailored survey represents the first PRO tool developed specifically for assessing tolerability in the phase I oncology population. We provide recommendations for future work aimed at integrating this survey into clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据