Reliability and validity of PRO-CTCAE® daily reporting with a 24-hour recall period.

PURPOSE: The standard recall period for the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) is the past 7 days, but there are contexts where a 24-hour recall may be desirable. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate the reliability and validity of a subset of PRO-CTCAE items captured using a 24-hour recall. METHODS: 27 PRO-CTCAE items representing 14 symptomatic adverse events (AEs) were collected using both a 24-hour recall (24 h) and the standard 7 day recall (7d) in a sample of patients receiving active cancer treatment (n = 113). Using data captured with a PRO-CTCAE-24h on days 6 and 7, and 20 and 21, we computed intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC); an ICC ≥ 0.70 was interpreted as demonstrating high test-retest reliability. Correlations between PRO-CTCAE-24h items on day 7 and conceptually relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains were examined. In responsiveness analysis, patients were deemed changed if they had a one-point or greater change in the corresponding PRO-CTCAE-7d item (from week 0 to week 1). RESULTS: PRO-CTCAE-24h captured on two consecutive days demonstrated that 21 of 27 items (78%) had ICCs ≥ 0.70 (day 6/7 median ICC 0.76), (day 20/21 median ICC 0.84). Median correlation between attributes within a common AE was 0.75, and the median correlation between conceptually relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and PRO-CTCAE-24 h items captured on day 7 was 0.44. In the analysis of responsiveness to change, the median standardized response mean (SRM) for patients with improvement was - 0.52 and that for patients with worsening was 0.71. CONCLUSION: A 24-hour recall period for PRO-CTCAE items has acceptable measurement properties and can inform day-to-day variations in symptomatic AEs when daily PRO-CTCAE administration is implemented in a clinical trial.

Performance of Standardized Relative CBV for Quantifying Regional Histologic Tumor Burden in Recurrent High-Grade Glioma: Comparison against Normalized Relative CBV Using Image-Localized Stereotactic Biopsies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Perfusion MR imaging measures of relative CBV can distinguish recurrent tumor from posttreatment radiation effects in high-grade gliomas. Currently, relative CBV measurement requires normalization based on user-defined reference tissues. A recently proposed method of relative CBV standardization eliminates the need for user input. This study compares the predictive performance of relative CBV standardization against relative CBV normalization for quantifying recurrent tumor burden in high-grade gliomas relative to posttreatment radiation effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited 38 previously treated patients with high-grade gliomas (World Health Organization grades III or IV) undergoing surgical re-resection for new contrast-enhancing lesions concerning for recurrent tumor versus posttreatment radiation effects. We recovered 112 image-localized biopsies and quantified the percentage of histologic tumor content versus posttreatment radiation effects for each sample. We measured spatially matched normalized and standardized relative CBV metrics (mean, median) and fractional tumor burden for each biopsy. We compared relative CBV performance to predict tumor content, including the Pearson correlation (r), against histologic tumor content (0%-100%) and the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for predicting high-versus-low tumor content using binary histologic cutoffs (≥50%; ≥80% tumor). RESULTS: Across relative CBV metrics, fractional tumor burden showed the highest correlations with tumor content (0%-100%) for normalized (r = 0.63, P < .001) and standardized (r = 0.66, P < .001) values. With binary cutoffs (ie, ≥50%; ≥80% tumor), predictive accuracies were similar for both standardized and normalized metrics and across relative CBV metrics. Median relative CBV achieved the highest area under the curve (normalized = 0.87, standardized = 0.86) for predicting ≥50% tumor, while fractional tumor burden achieved the highest area under the curve (normalized = 0.77, standardized = 0.80) for predicting ≥80% tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of relative CBV achieves similar performance compared with normalized relative CBV and offers an important step toward workflow optimization and consensus methodology.