Utility of a Focused Patient Reported Outcome Assessment in a Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Oncology Clinic

N. Razavian,R.F. Shenker,R.T. Hughes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.129
IF: 8.013
2024-04-01
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Abstract:Purpose/Objective(s) Head and neck (HN) radiotherapy (RT) is associated with a substantial acute and late toxicity burden. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical in understanding the patient's perception of RT toxicity and may provide valuable data points in both clinical trials and the clinic. We sought to evaluate the concordance between clinician rated CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE in HN cancer patients treated with RT. Materials/Methods From 10/2020 to 02/2023 all new and returning patients to our HN RT clinic received a focused, HN-specific PRO-CTCAE toxicity assessment. The 11-question form contained 10 modified PRO-CTCAE items - HN pain, dry mouth, taste changes, difficulty swallowing, voice quality changes, hoarseness, fatigue, and a self-report swallowing item using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). At each visit, corresponding CTCAE measures were also collected. Encounters containing CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE data were eligible for analysis. The percent agreement between CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE was quantified using thresholds of 0 and 1 point, and strength of association was examined using Spearman's correlation. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05. Results A total of 407 encounters for 197 consecutive patients were available for analysis: most assessments were collected at baseline (25%) or within 3 months of completing RT (33%). Among the included patients, the most frequent primary site was oropharynx (36%) and the majority had locally advanced disease (64%), were treated with curative intent (59%), or received concurrent chemotherapy (59%). When the threshold for agreement was 0 (perfect agreement), concordance between clinician and patient reported symptoms ranged from 49.1% to 71.2% (Table). When the threshold for agreement was set to +/-1 point, concordance increased to 81.3% to 92.3%. At both thresholds, agreement between clinician and patient assessment were strongest for swallowing function (FIOS) and weakest for dry mouth. For all symptoms, correlation between CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE were statistically significant (P<0.001). Conclusion In the setting of RT for HN cancer, we demonstrate significant associations between clinician and patient rating of symptoms using the CTCAE scale. Clinician and patient ratings were most strongly in agreement for swallowing function, suggesting that physicians can incorporate FIOS into baseline and follow-up assessment of patients receiving RT for HN cancers.
oncology,radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
What problem does this paper attempt to address?