Cited by 497Cancer survivorship and carePharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsCancer Treatment and Pharmacology

Symptomatic toxicities experienced during anticancer treatment: agreement between patient and physician reporting in three randomized trials

Open access
Di Maio, Massimo, Gallo, Ciro, Leighl, Natasha B., Piccirillo, Maria Carmela, Daniele, Gennaro, Nuzzo, Francesco, Gridelli, Cesare, Gebbia, Vittorio +12 more·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. Patients and Methods: In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were “not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much.” Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. Results: Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported “very much” toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. Conclusion: Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2014.57.9334

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several randomized clinical trials with similar interventions have proven that RPM significantly improves symptom burden in comparison with routine care.

    “However, several randomized clinical trials with similar interventions have proven that RPM significantly improves symptom burden in comparison with routine care.7,13,14”

    From Implementation of a remote symptom monitoring pathway in oncology care: analysis of real-world experience across 33 cancer centres in France and Belgium (2024) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Discussion (page not provided) describes an analysis of disagreement between patient and physician reports of symptoms in three randomized trials. A search for remote patient monitoring and symptom-burden outcomes found no passage reporting that RPM improved symptom burden compared with routine care. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Di Maio, M., Gallo, C., Leighl, N. B., Piccirillo, M. C., Daniele, G., Nuzzo, F., Gridelli, C., Gebbia, V., Ciardiello, F., De Placido, S., Ceribelli, A., Favaretto, A. G., de Matteis, A., Feld, R., Butts, C., Bryce, J., Signoriello, S., Morabito, A., Rocco, G., & Perrone, F.
Affiliations
  • Massimo Di Maio, Maria Carmela Piccirillo, Gennaro Daniele, Francesco Nuzzo, Andrea de Matteis, Jane Bryce, Alessandro Morabito, Gaetano Rocco, and Francesco Perrone, Istituto Nazionale Tumori–Fondazione “G. Pascale” Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico; Ciro Gallo, Fortunato Ciardiello, and Simona Signoriello, Second University; Sabino De Placido, Federico II University, Napoli; Cesare Gridelli, S.G. Moscati Hospital, Avellino; Vittorio Gebbia, Istituto La Maddalena, Palermo; Anna...
  • Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" (IT)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2015-03-10
Volume
33
Issue
8
Pages
910-915
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2156635540
Cited by
497
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 22
FWCI
20.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Keywords
anticancer treatment, patient-physician agreement, underreporting, patient-reported outcomes, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, hair loss, adjuvant chemotherapy, breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, first-line therapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anorexia, Antineoplastic Agents, Breast Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Constipation, Diarrhea, Europe, Female, Humans, Hypotrichosis, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Nausea, Patient Participation, Physicians, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vomiting, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review