» Articles » PMID: 20888137

Comparison of Provider-assessed and Patient-reported Outcome Measures of Acute Skin Toxicity During a Phase III Trial of Mometasone Cream Versus Placebo During Breast Radiotherapy: the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N06C4)

Abstract

Purpose: Considerable interobserver variability exists among providers and between providers and patients when measuring subjective symptoms. In the recently published Phase III N06C4 trial of mometasone cream vs. placebo to prevent radiation dermatitis, the primary provider-assessed (PA) endpoint, using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), was negative. However, prospectively planned secondary analyses of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), using the Skindex-16 and Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool (STAT), were positive. This study assesses the relationship between PA outcomes and PROs.

Methods And Materials: Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to compare the three tools. Statistical correlations were defined as follows: <0.5, mild; 0.5-0.7, moderate; and >0.7, strong.

Results: CTCAE dermatitis moderately correlated with STAT erythema, and CTCAE pruritus strongly correlated with STAT itching. CTCAE pruritus had a moderate correlation with Skindex-16 itching. Comparing the 2 PRO tools, Skindex-16 itching correlated moderately with STAT itching. Skindex-16 burning, hurting, irritation, and persistence all showed the strongest correlation with STAT burning; they showed moderate correlations with STAT itching and tenderness.

Conclusions: The PRO Skindex-16 correlated well with the PRO portions of STAT, but neither tool correlated well with CTCAE. PROs delineated a wider spectrum of toxicity than PA measures and provided more information on rash, redness, pruritus, and annoyance measures compared with CTCAE findings of rash and pruritus. PROs may provide a more complete measure of patient experience than single-symptom, PA endpoints in clinical trials assessing radiation skin toxicity.

Citing Articles

Keratin-based topical cream for radiation dermatitis during head and neck radiotherapy: a randomised, open-label pilot study.

Hughes R, Levine B, Frizzell B, Greven K, Porosnicu M, Lycan Jr T J Radiother Pract. 2024; 23.

PMID: 39363952 PMC: 11449460. DOI: 10.1017/s1460396924000037.


Acute skin toxicity and self-management ability among Chinese breast cancer radiotherapy patients: a qualitative study.

Lu X, Yin Y, Geng W, Liu L, Liu F, Zhang Z Support Care Cancer. 2024; 32(6):394.

PMID: 38814489 PMC: 11139738. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08583-3.


Quantitative radiomics approach to assess acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients.

Park S, Park J, Kim J, Choi C, Chun M, Chang J PLoS One. 2023; 18(10):e0293071.

PMID: 37883380 PMC: 10602246. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293071.


Mepitel Film for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lee S, Wong H, Chan A, Caini S, Shariati S, Rades D Support Care Cancer. 2023; 31(9):527.

PMID: 37594538 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07988-w.


Risk assessment, surveillance, and nonpharmaceutical prevention of acute radiation dermatitis: results of a multicentric survey among the German-speaking radiation oncology community.

Layer K, Layer J, Glasmacher A, Sarria G, Bohner A, Layer Y Strahlenther Onkol. 2023; 199(10):891-900.

PMID: 37099166 PMC: 10542714. DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02074-w.


References
1.
Palazzi M, Tomatis S, Orlandi E, Guzzo M, Sangalli C, Potepan P . Effects of treatment intensification on acute local toxicity during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: prospective observational study validating CTCAE, version 3.0, scoring system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 70(2):330-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.022. View

2.
Cleeland C, Mendoza T, Wang X, Chou C, Harle M, Morrissey M . Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer. 2000; 89(7):1634-46. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20001001)89:7<1634::aid-cncr29>3.0.co;2-v. View

3.
Sloan J . Challenges in QOL assessment. Overview and introduction. Curr Probl Cancer. 2005; 29(6):274-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2005.09.001. View

4.
Sloan J, Dueck A . Issues for statisticians in conducting analyses and translating results for quality of life end points in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2004; 14(1):73-96. DOI: 10.1081/BIP-120028507. View

5.
Tong D, Gillick L, HENDRICKSON F . The palliation of symptomatic osseous metastases: final results of the Study by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Cancer. 1982; 50(5):893-9. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19820901)50:5<893::aid-cncr2820500515>3.0.co;2-y. View