Classification of treatment-related mortality in children with cancer: a systematic assessment.

Treatment-related mortality is an important outcome in paediatric cancer clinical trials. An international group of experts in supportive care in paediatric cancer developed a consensus-based definition of treatment-related mortality and a cause-of-death attribution system. The reliability and validity of the system was tested in 30 deaths, which were independently assessed by two clinical research associates and two paediatric oncologists. We defined treatment-related mortality as death occurring in the absence of progressive cancer. Of the 30 reviewed deaths, the reliability of classification for treatment-related mortality was noted as excellent by clinical research associates (κ=0·83, 95% CI 0·60-1·00) and paediatric oncologists (0·84, 0·63-1·00). Criterion validity was established because agreement between the consensus classifications by clinical research associates and paediatric oncologists was almost perfect (0·92, 0·78-1·00). Our approach should allow comparison of treatment-related mortality across trials and across time.

A systematic review of symptom assessment scales in children with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to describe symptom assessment scales that have been used in children with cancer. METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of OVID Medline and EMBASE in order to identify all symptom assessment scales that have been used in pediatric cancer. Two reviewers abstracted information from each identified study. Data collected included study demographics and information related to the instrument and children enrolled. We also collected information about the purpose of instrument administration and whether treatment was altered as a result of this information. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified which evaluated eight different symptom assessment scales. Eight studies used child self-report and all studies included children on active treatment for cancer although 4 studies also included children following completion of treatment. The most common purpose of instrument administration was to measure the prevalence of symptom burden (n = 8). None of the 14 studies used the scale to screen for symptoms and none changed patient management on the basis of identified symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: We failed to identify any symptom assessment scales that were used as a symptom screening tool. There is a need to develop such a tool for use in children with cancer.