Patient experience of early high grade symptomatic adverse events on early phase clinical trials using the PRO-CTCAE.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
12051 Background: There are limited data describing the patients’ experience of symptomatic adverse events (syAEs) on early phase clinical trials. This information is critical to understand the tolerability of experimental agents. The patient reported outcome version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) evaluates syAE components such as severity and interference in daily life. The aim of this study was to correlate clinician reported early, high grade (grade 3-4) AEs with patients’ reported experience of these toxicities. Methods: Advanced solid tumor patients (pts) enrolled on early phase clinical trials at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were surveyed electronically using the full library of 78 items for PRO-CTCAE v1.0, which was administered at baseline (prior to therapy), mid-cycle 1, and mid-cycle 2. AEs on study were recorded by physicians using the CTCAE v4.0. Worst responses for severity items are ‘severe’ and ‘very severe’ and for interference items are ‘quite a bit’ and ‘very much’. A logistic regression model was used to assess the association between CTCAE grade and PRO-CTCAE severity and interference. Results: A total of 292 pts were approached in phase 1 clinics from May 2017 to January 2019, and 219 pts were included in the analysis: median age 60 years (range 18-82), 111 (51%) were male; all were ECOG ≤1. A total of 140 pts (64%) received combination therapy (immunotherapy and targeted therapy), and 73 pts (33%) had received ≥3 previous lines of treatment. In terms of patient reported syAEs, a total of 114 pts (52%) reported a symptomatic AE as either severe or very severe at any timepoint and 79 pts (36%) reported a syAE with an interference that was either ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’. With regards to clinician reported AEs, a total of 82 pts (37%) had a clinician reported grade 3 or 4 syAE, and of these 34 pts (41%) reported these as either severe or very severe; and 26 pts (32%) found these AEs interfered with daily life either ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’. Additionally 137 pts (66%) had a clinician reported grade 1 or 2 syAE, and of these 39 pts (28%) reported these as either severe or very severe; and 19 (14%) found these AEs interfered with daily life either ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’. Higher grade clinician reported syAEs (CTCAE grade 3-4 vs 1-2) was associated with higher patient reported severity levels (odds ratio, OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1-3.16, p = 0.049), and was associated with higher patient reported interference levels (OR = 2.88, 95% CI 1.47-5.64, p = 0.002). Conclusions: A majority of patients had a very negative experience of syAEs on a phase I trial. Higher grades of clinician reported AEs correlated with greater severity and interference with daily living. Future phase I studies could incorporate the PRO-CTCAE and other PRO tools which could inform the tolerability of experimental regimens and enhance the description of symptomatic AEs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".