RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Radiotherapy-related dermatological toxicities over time have not been well quantified. We examined during and immediately following radiation therapy skin toxicities over time in a randomized study of mometasone furoate vs placebo during breast radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall were randomized. Symptoms related to skin toxicity were addressed weekly using provider-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v3.0) and 4 patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys. We applied repeated measures and risk analysis methodologies. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled. By CTCAE, significant differences favoring mometasone were detected over time in all toxicities except skin striae, atrophy, and infection. Statistically significant differences between arms at baseline but not over time occurred for all Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Statistically significant differences occurred for all symptoms in the temporal profile of symptoms as measured by PRO surveys (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of longitudinal methods enhanced the ability of PRO tools to detect differences between study arms. Our results strengthened the conclusions of the original report that mometasone reduced acute skin toxicities. PRO surveys can accurately assess patients' experiences of symptom type and intensity over time and should be included in future clinical trials. For radiotherapy-related dermatological toxicity, we hypothesized that clinically significant differences over time, if any, can be found by repeated measures. We examined the acute skin toxicities in a randomized study of mometasone vs placebo during breast radiotherapy. For secondary end points, we showed that longitudinal methods enhanced the detection of differences between study arms and strengthened the conclusions from the original report. Frequent patient-reported outcome surveys over time should be included in future clinical trials.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/complicaciones , Furoato de Mometasona/efectos adversos , Anciano , Neoplasias de la Mama/radioterapia , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/radioterapia , Fármacos Dermatológicos/uso terapéutico , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/métodos , Pregnadienodioles/uso terapéutico , Radiodermatitis/prevención & control , Comunicación , Eritema/etiología , Eritema/prevención & control , Femenino , Humanos , Furoato de Mometasona , Estudios Prospectivos , Prurito/etiología , Prurito/prevención & control , Calidad de Vida , Radiodermatitis/complicaciones , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: A two-arm, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to evaluate the effect of 0.1% mometasone furoate (MMF) on acute skin-related toxicity in patients undergoing breast or chest wall radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast carcinoma who were undergoing external beam radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall were randomly assigned to apply 0.1% MMF or placebo cream daily. The primary study endpoint was the provider-assessed maximal grade of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, radiation dermatitis. The secondary endpoints included provider-assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Grade 3 or greater radiation dermatitis and adverse event monitoring. The patient-reported outcome measures included the Skindex-16, the Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool, a Symptom Experience Diary, and a quality-of-life self-assessment. An assessment was performed at baseline, weekly during radiotherapy, and for 2 weeks after radiotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were enrolled between September 21, 2007, and December 7, 2007. The provider-assessed primary endpoint showed no difference in the mean maximum grade of radiation dermatitis by treatment arm (1.2 for MMF vs. 1.3 for placebo; p = .18). Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicity was greater in the placebo group (p = .04), primarily from pruritus. For the patient-reported outcome measures, the maximum Skindex-16 score for the MMF group showed less itching (p = .008), less irritation (p = .01), less symptom persistence or recurrence (p = .02), and less annoyance with skin problems (p = .04). The group's maximal Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool score showed less burning sensation (p = .02) and less itching (p = .002). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving daily MMF during radiotherapy might experience reduced acute skin toxicity compared with patients receiving placebo.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/radioterapia , Carcinoma in Situ/radioterapia , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/radioterapia , Fármacos Dermatológicos/uso terapéutico , Pregnadienodioles/uso terapéutico , Radiodermatitis/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Aguda , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Antiinflamatorios , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Furoato de Mometasona , Prurito/tratamiento farmacológico , Prurito/etiologíaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer. This trial was developed to evaluate the efficacy of long-acting methylphenidate for improving cancer-related fatigue and to assess its toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with cancer were randomly assigned in a double-blinded manner to receive methylphenidate (target dose, 54 mg/d) or placebo for 4 weeks. The Brief Fatigue Inventory was the primary outcome measure, while secondary outcome measures included a Symptom Experience Diary (SED), the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Vitality Subscale, a linear analog self-assessment, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Subject Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: In total, 148 patients were enrolled. Using an area under the serum concentration-time curve analysis, there was no evidence that methylphenidate, as compared with placebo, improved the primary end point of cancer-related fatigue in this patient population (P = .35). Comparisons of secondary end points, including clinically significant changes in quality-of-life variables and cancer-related fatigue change from baseline, were similarly negative. However, a subset analysis suggested that patients with more severe fatigue and/or with more advanced disease did have some fatigue improvement with methylphenidate (eg, in patients with stage III or IV disease, the mean improvement in usual fatigue was 19.7 with methylphenidate v 2.1 with placebo; P = .02). There was a significant difference in self-reported toxicities (SED), with increased levels of nervousness and appetite loss in the methylphenidate arm. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial was unable to support the primary prestudy hypothesis that the chosen long-acting methylphenidate product would decrease cancer-related fatigue.