Abstract:Importance: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a substantial adverse effect of anticancer treatments. As such, the assessment of CIPN remains critically important in both research and clinic settings. Objective: To compare the validity of various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with neurophysiological and sensory functional measures as the optimal method of CIPN assessment. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study evaluated participants treated with neurotoxic chemotherapy across 2 cohorts using a dual-study design. Participants commencing treatment were assessed prospectively at beginning of neurotoxic treatment, midtreatment, and at the end of treatment. Participants who completed treatment up to 5 years prior were assessed cross-sectionally and completed a single assessment time point. Participants were recruited from oncology centers in Australia from August 2015 to November 2022. Data analysis occurred from February to November 2023. Exposures: Neurotoxic cancer treatment including taxanes, platinums, vinca-alkaloids, proteasome inhibitors, and thalidomide. Main outcomes and measures: CIPN was assessed via PROMs (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC-CIPN20], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecological Cancer Group Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (FACT/GOG-Ntx), and the patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]), neurological and neurophysiological assessment (Total Neuropathy Score and sural and tibial compound nerve amplitudes), and sensory measures (Grating orientation, Von Frey monofilament, and 2-point discrimination tasks). Core measurement properties of CIPN outcome measures were evaluated. Convergent and known-groups validity was assessed cross-sectionally following treatment completion, and responsiveness was evaluated prospectively during treatment. Neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measure scores were compared between those who reported high and low levels of CIPN symptoms using linear regressions. Results: A total of 1033 participants (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-59] years; 676 female [65.4%]) were recruited to this study, incorporating 1623 assessments. PROMs demonstrated best ability to accurately assess CIPN (convergent validity), especially the PRO-CTCAE composite score (r = 0.85; P < .001) and EORTC-CIPN20 (r = 0.79; P < .001). PROMS also demonstrated the best ability to discriminate between CIPN severity (known-groups validity) and to detect changes at onset of CIPN development (responsiveness), especially for EORTC-CIPN20 (d = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.83), FACT/GOG-Ntx (d = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81) and the PRO-CTCAE (d = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02). Other measures did not achieve threshold for convergent validity (α < 0.7). Neurophysiological and sensory measures did not demonstrate acceptable responsiveness. In regression models, neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measures were significantly impaired in participants who reported high levels of CIPN symptoms compared with those who reported low levels of CIPN symptoms. Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of 1033 cancer patients, PROMs were the only measures to satisfy all 3 core measurement property criteria (convergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness). These findings suggest that adoption of PROMs in clinical practice can equip clinicians with valuable information in assessing CIPN morbidity.

Does a Concise Patient-reported Outcome Measure Provide a Valid Measure of Physical Function for Cancer Patients After Lower Extremity Surgery?

Current Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Ignores Functional Demand

The landscape of Functional Outcome Measures Used in Patients with Bone Sarcoma of the Lower Extremity or Pelvis: A Systematic Review

The relationship between patient‐reported and objective measures of physical function among cancer survivors receiving rehabilitation care: A correlation analysis

Integrating 4 Measures to Evaluate Physical Function in Patients with Cancer (In4M): Protocol for a prospective study

Physical functioning in the lumbar spinal surgery population: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of outcome measures and measurement properties of the physical measures

The Pediatric Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (pTESS): Validation of a Self-reported Functional Outcomes Tool for Children with Extremity Tumors

Evaluating the Use of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure in Cancer Care: A Pilot Study in Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy

Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures

Relevance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Cancer: Detection of Underrated Psychological Distress of Palliative Care Patients in an Outpatient Setting

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Spine Oncology: A Narrative Review

Physical functioning of elderly cancer patients prior to diagnosis and following initial treatment

Physical function patient‐reported outcomes among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: A systematic review

Risk of significant functional impairment across cancer diagnosis and care continuum

Measuring social function in diverse cancer populations: Evaluation of measurement equivalence of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities short form

Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Evaluating Nerve Damage Following Chemotherapy

Enhancing the evaluation of physical function following orthopaedic trauma care: comparison of PROMIS Computerized Adaptive Testing and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA)

Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential

Integrating 4 methods to evaluate physical function in patients with cancer (In4M): protocol for a prospective cohort study

The LIMB-Q: Reliability and Validity of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Lower Extremity Trauma Patients

Abstract PO5-11-12: The use of wearable sensors and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer research: A literature survey