Background: Over 90% of patients with cancer experience 1 or more symptoms caused directly by cancer or its treatment. These symptoms negatively impact on the completion of planned treatment as well as patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It often results in serious complications and even life-threatening outcomes. Thus, it has been recommended that surveillance of symptom burden should be performed and managed during cancer treatment. However, differences in symptom profiles in various patients with cancer have not been fully elucidated for use in performing surveillance in the real world.
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the burden of symptoms in patients with various types of cancers during chemotherapy or radiation therapy using the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcome Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) and its impact on quality of life.
Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing outpatient-based chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or both at the National Cancer Center at Goyang or at the Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, Korea between December 2017 and January 2018. To evaluate cancer-specific symptom burden, we developed 10 subsets for using the PRO-CTCAE-Korean. To measure HRQoL, we used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Participants answered questions prior to their clinic appointments on tablets. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze symptoms based on cancer type and to evaluate the association between the PRO-CTCAE items and the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score.
Results: The mean age (SD) of the patients was 55.0 (11.9) years, and 39.94% (540/1352) were male. Overall, symptoms in the gastrointestinal category were the most dominant in all cancers. Fatigue (1034/1352, 76.48%), decreased appetite (884/1352, 65.38%), and numbness and tingling (778/1352, 57.54%) were the most frequently reported. Patients reported more local symptoms caused by a specific cancer. In terms of nonsite-specific symptoms, patients commonly reported concentration (587/1352, 43.42%), anxiety (647/1352, 47.86%), and general pain (605/1352, 44.75%). More than 50% of patients with colorectal (69/127, 54.3%), gynecologic (63/112, 56.3%), breast (252/411, 61.3%), and lung cancers (121/234, 51.7%) experienced decreased libido, whereas 67/112 (59.8%) patients with gynecologic cancer and lymphoma/myeloma reported pain during sexual intercourse. Patients with breast, gastric, and liver cancers were more likely to have the hand-foot syndrome. Worsening PRO-CTCAE scores were associated with poor HRQoL (eg, fatigue: coefficient –8.15; 95% CI –9.32 to –6.97), difficulty in achieving and maintaining erection (coefficient –8.07; 95% CI –14.52 to –1.61), poor concentration (coefficient –7.54; 95% CI –9.06 to –6.01), and dizziness (coefficient –7.24; 95% CI –8.92 to –5.55).
Conclusions: The frequency and severity of symptoms differed by cancer types. Higher symptom burden was associated with poor HRQoL, which suggests the importance of appropriate surveillance of PRO symptoms during cancer treatment. Considering patients had comprehensive symptoms, it is necessary to include a holistic approach in the symptom monitoring and management strategies based on comprehensive patient-reported outcome measurements.
Over 90% of patients with cancer experience 1 or more symptoms caused directly by cancer or its treatment [, ]. These symptoms negatively impact on the completion of planned treatment as well as their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It often results in serious complications and even life-threatening outcomes [ ]. Thus, it has been recommended that surveillance of symptom burden should be performed and managed during cancer treatment [ ].
However, barriers to symptom monitoring are medical jargon and lack of trust . In addition, there have been only few reliable and valid tools for this purpose [ ]. Thus, there have been growing calls for developing and implementing standardized patient-reported outcome measurements for symptom surveillance in patients with cancers for both clinical care and research purposes [ ]. A major advancement in this direction is the US National Cancer Institute’s PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcome Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), which comprises 124 items of 15 categories, based on 78 CTCAE toxicities considered appropriate for patient reporting [ , ]. According to a qualitative study [ ], although many participants appreciated the personalized approach with symptom monitoring, they do not want to use a symptom checker that asks too many questions or that takes too long to complete. As frequent administration of the complete library of the PRO-CTCAE is impractical and burdensome, the Food and Drug Administration recommends selecting a relevant item set that can provide insights into the most important toxicities for the treatments being evaluated [ ].
So far, most guidelines developed for selecting symptom measures were designed for clinical trials, and there is a lack of guidance for practitioners and for performing surveillance in the real-world clinical setting . In fact, when the adverse events (AEs) were collected from the real world, new side effects related to the medication use not listed on the drug label have been reported [ ]. Although a subset for practice was recently suggested based on a Delphi study with stakeholder panels [ , ], they only covered common cancers in Western countries, such as breast, lung, and colorectal cancers; further, the guidelines are limited to uncommon cancers, such as lymphoma, stomach, or liver cancers. In addition, differences in symptom profiles among various patients with cancer have not been fully elucidated for use in performing surveillance in the real world [ ]. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the burden of symptoms in patients with various types of cancers during chemotherapy or radiation therapy using the PRO-CTCAE in the real world and its impact on quality of life.
We performed a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing outpatient-based chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or both at the National Cancer Center (NCC) at Goyang or at the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) in Seoul, Korea between December 2017 and January 2018. Eligible participants were (1) older than age 18; (2) diagnosed with cancer; (3) currently receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy or both; and (4) those who can read, speak, and comprehend Korean. To include a more diverse sample of patients with cancer who have relatively little information about symptom burden, we aimed to recruit at least 50 patients with lymphoma, gastric, gynecologic, head and neck, and liver cancers. To simultaneously evaluate the measurement properties of all items of the PRO-CTCAE-Korean (n=124) within a single study, we aimed to recruit 1300 patients with cancer. Based on the site investigator’s assessment, patients with clinically significant cognitive impairment were excluded from the study. The sampling frame was monitored to ensure that a minimum of 15% of participants had an impaired performance status (PS), defined as an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 2 or higher .
Participants answered questions prior to their clinic appointments on tablets without assistance but could request technical assistance from the study staff if required.
For cancer-specific symptom burden surveillance, we developed 10 subsets of the PRO-CTCAE-Korean (9 for specific cancers and 1 for general purpose). The PRO-CTCAE item library has been previously translated and validated in Korean [, ]. The PRO-CTCAE-Korean instrument has been linguistically validated for use in Korean-speaking populations [ ]. In addition, the instrument has shown high construct validity (correlation [r] for all items >0.30 with the anchor items) and high test-retest reliability (range of intraclass correlation coefficient 0.33-0.83) [ ]. To generate a subset for each type of cancer, we included common symptomatic AEs recommended by the National Cancer Institute based on their high prevalence across different cancer treatment types [ ]. In addition, we included symptomatic AEs that were prevalent in specific subgroups for different cancer sites based on a literature review and recommendation by a panel of 15 medical and radiation oncologists. We performed a Delphi survey 2 times by providing the panel with the entire list of the PRO-CTCAE-Korean instrument and then asking them to choose prevalent and important symptoms to generate subsets for each cancer type. The subsets contained a minimum of 28 to a maximum of 58 symptomatic AEs.
To measure HRQoL, we used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), previously validated in Korean , and scored the QLQ-C30 summary score according to the scoring manual [ ]. Higher scores on these indicate better function. Further, demographic information was gathered by self-reporting, and clinical variables were obtained from electronic health records.
A composite-grade scoring algorithm was used to obtain single numerical grades for AEs based on multiple PRO-CTCAE items . Following the composite grading algorithm, a single composite grade was given to the PRO-CTCAE item combinations within the range of 0-3. A higher composite grade indicates the worse symptom experience. One rule of thumb for interpreting the difference in PRO scores is 10% of the instrument range [ ]. As the score ranged between 0 and 3, we considered that differences of 0.4 points (ie, 10% of the score range) were clinically meaningful.
The symptom prevalence by composite grades of the PRO-CTCAE items is shown using a tree map. The size of the rectangles in the tree map indicates the proportion of patients with symptoms, with the darker colors indicating a higher prevalence of patients who reported symptoms as severe. Linear regression was used to analyze symptoms based on cancer type. Covariates adjusted were patient’s age, sex, ECOG, and treatment types. Linear regression was also performed to evaluate the association between the PRO-CTCAE items and the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score .
All analyses were performed using STATA version 16 (StataCorp LP) and R 3.6.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.
Study participants provided written informed consent. We gave the participants a US $5 gift card to thank them for their participation. The Institutional Review Board of the Samsung Medical Center (SMC 2020-04-157) and the National Cancer Center (NCC2017-0249) approved this study. All the research data were encrypted.
A total of 1352 patients (breast, n=411; colorectal, n=127; gastric, n=123; gynecologic, n=112; head and neck, n=56; liver, n=67; lung, n=234; lymphoma, n=112; prostate, n=57; and others, n=53) participated in this study. The mean age (SD) of the patients was 55.0 (11.9) years; 39.94% (540/1352) were male and 79.29% (1072/1352) received chemotherapy ().
Gastrointestinal cancer (purple) was the most dominant among all cancers (). Patients commonly reported decreased appetite (884/1352, 65.38%), taste change (764/1352, 56.51%), nausea (588/1352, 43.49%), constipation (607/1352, 44.90%), and diarrhea (459/1352, 33.95%; and ). Fatigue (1034/1352, 76.48%) was the most frequently reported symptom followed by decreased appetite (884/1352, 65.38%), numbness and tingling (778/1352, 57.54%), insomnia (773/1352, 57.17%), taste change (764/1352, 56.51%), and hair loss (691/1352, 51.11%; ).
When we compared the symptoms across different types of cancer, patients reported more local symptoms caused by a specific cancer (). After adjusting for age, sex, ECOG status, and treatment type, patients with gastric cancer were more likely to have taste changes, decreased appetite, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain compared with those with other types of cancer. Patients with head and neck cancer had more dry mouth and difficulty in swallowing compared with those with other types of cancer ( ).
In terms of nonsite-specific symptoms, patients commonly reported concentration (587/1352, 43.42%), anxiety (647/1352, 47.86%), sadness (638/1352, 47.19%), and general pain (605/1352, 44.75%;). After adjusting for confounders, patients with liver cancer experienced relatively more fatigue and anxiety than those with other types of cancer ( ).
More than 50% of patients with colorectal, gynecologic, breast, and lung cancers and lymphoma/myeloma experienced sexual symptoms, such as decreased libido or pain during sexual intercourse (). For example, 49.6% (63/127) of patients with colorectal cancer reported problems in achieving and maintaining erection and 51.7% (121/234) of patients with lung cancer reported decreased libido. Patients with breast (265/411, 64.4%), colorectal (63/127, 49.6%), gastric (68/123, 55.3%), gynecologic (65/112, 58.0%), and lung cancers (103/234, 44.0%) and lymphoma (52/112, 46.4%) more frequently reported skin dryness ( ). Patients with breast (coefficient 0.19; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.28), gastric (coefficient 0.17; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30), and liver (coefficient 0.21; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.38) cancers were more likely to have the hand-foot syndrome even after adjusting for potential confounders ( ).
We observed a significant decrease in the mean QLQ-C30 summary scores across worsening PRO-CTCAE scores (). In particular, memory, all the symptoms in the mood category, fatigue, difficulty in achieving and maintaining erection, body odor, concentration, and dizziness were associated with decreasing of QLQ-C30 summary scores ( ).
|Characteristics||Breast (n=411)||Colorectal (n=127)||Gastric (n=123)||Gynecologic (n=112)||Head and neck (n=56)||Liver (n=67)||Lung (n=234)||Lymphoma (n=112)||Prostate (n=57)||Others (n=53)||P value|
|Age group, mean (SD)||49.1 (9.4)||56.4 (9.6)||56 (11.4)||52.8 (11)||58.9 (11.3)||59.7 (9.4)||61 (9.4)||52.9 (16.5)||67.8 (10.2)||55.9 (13.2)||<.01|
|Gender, n (%)||<.01|
|Female||409 (99.5)||59 (46.5)||40 (32.5)||112 (100)||18 (32.1)||23 (34.3)||82 (35.0)||40 (35.7)||8 (14.0)||21 (39.6)|
|Male||2 (0.5)||68 (53.5)||83 (67.5)||0 (0)||38 (67.9)||44 (65.7)||152 (65.0)||72 (64.3)||49 (86.0)||32 (60.4)|
|Education, n (%)||<.01|
|Less than middle school||36 (8.8)||27 (21.3)||28 (22.8)||22 (19.6)||17 (30.4)||16 (23.8)||79 (33.8)||22 (19.6)||19 (33.3)||9 (17.0)|
|High school||170 (41.4)||51 (40.2)||51 (41.5)||51 (45.5)||16 (28.6)||27 (40.3)||102 (43.6)||46 (41.1)||19 (33.3)||19 (35.8)|
|More than college||205 (49.9)||49 (38.6)||44 (35.8)||39 (34.8)||23 (41.1)||24 (35.8)||53 (22.6)||44 (39.3)||19 (33.3)||25 (47.2)|
|Employment status, n (%)||<.01|
|Employed||110 (26.8)||40 (31.5)||44 (35.8)||11 (9.8)||15 (26.8)||15 (22.4)||58 (24.8)||37 (33.0)||8 (14.0)||15 (28.3)|
|Unemployed||301 (73.2)||87 (68.5)||79 (64.2)||101 (90.2)||41 (73.2)||52 (77.6)||176 (75.2)||75 (67.0)||49 (86.0)||38 (71.7)|
|Monthly family income, n (%)||<.01|
|<US $1990||75 (18.2)||28 (22.0)||44 (35.8)||27 (24.1)||14 (25.0)||24 (35.8)||84 (35.9)||29 (25.9)||27 (47.4)||9 (17.0)|
|US $2000-US $3990||153 (37.2)||62 (48.8)||45 (36.6)||55 (49.1)||26 (46.4)||26 (38.8)||97 (41.5)||41 (36.6)||21 (36.8)||26 (49.1)|
|≥US $4000||183 (44.5)||37 (29.1)||34 (27.6)||30 (26.8)||16 (28.6)||17 (25.4)||53 (22.6)||42 (37.5)||9 (15.8)||18 (34.0)|
|ECOGa performance status at the first visit, n (%)||.01|
|0-1||347 (84.4)||111 (87.4)||87 (70.7)||84 (75.0)||47 (83.9)||57 (85.1)||190 (81.2)||89 (79.5)||50 (87.7)||42 (79.2)|
|2-4||64 (15.6)||16 (12.6)||36 (29.3)||28 (25.0)||9 (16.1)||10 (14.9)||44 (18.8)||23 (20.5)||7 (12.3)||11 (20.8)|
|Current treatment, n (%)||<.01|
|Chemotherapy||306 (74.5)||105 (82.7)||123 (100)||94 (83.9)||25 (44.6)||60 (89.6)||182 (77.8)||109 (97.3)||32 (56.1)||36 (67.9)|
|Radiation||81 (19.7)||3 (2.4)||0 (0)||6 (5.4)||15 (26.8)||4 (6.0)||13 (5.6)||1 (0.9)||19 (33.3)||15 (28.3)|
|Both||24 (5.8)||19 (15)||0 (0)||12 (10.7)||16 (28.6)||3 (4.5)||39 (16.7)||2 (1.8)||6 (10.5)||2 (3.8)|
aECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
In this large real-world surveillance study of burden of symptoms among patients with various types of cancers undergoing chemoradiation therapy, frequency and severity of symptoms differed by cancer types. A higher symptom burden score was associated with poor quality of life, suggesting the importance of appropriate surveillance of PRO symptoms during cancer treatment.
Symptoms in the gastrointestinal category were most commonly reported among patients with different cancer types than those in other categories, and this finding is consistent with the results of a previous study . Gastrointestinal cancer symptoms reportedly plagued many patients regardless of their cancer types [ ] because chemotherapy can damage healthy cells in the lining of the digestive system from the mouth to the anus [ ]. Therefore, chemotherapy can affect these areas and cause vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and mouth sores. The most common side effects of chemotherapy associated with the gastrointestinal tract are taste changes, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea [ ]. The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has been revolutionized over the past few years. Vomiting can be prevented in most cases [ ]. However, other factors such as advanced age, decreased mobility, dietary errors, psychological alterations, and cancer-related complications may increase its occurrence [ ]. In clinical practice, the implementation of nonpharmacological strategies plays an important role as an adjunct to pharmacological agents in alleviating chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal symptoms.
In this study, we found that patients experienced more frequent and more severe symptoms caused by a specific cancer. For example, head and neck as well as lung and prostate cancers had relatively more oral, respiratory, and urinary tract symptoms, respectively, compared with other types of cancer. Our study findings are somewhat similar to the results of previous studies which reported that most patients (>80%) experienced symptoms related to their cancer site . Although chemotherapy and related treatment regimens affect the whole body, the origin site of cancer seems to have a greater impact on patient’s symptom burden. As the different types of cancer had different symptoms even when patients received the same treatment, it is necessary to provide specific care to manage the complexity of the symptoms by the cancer type [ ]. Therefore, it is important to develop and use a specific subset of the assessment when evaluating chemotherapy- or radiation-induced symptoms for patients with different types of cancers or undergoing treatment options.
Using the PRO-CTCAE will help detect symptoms that were often underreported by health professionals , as we have shown in this study, where many patients reported problems with sexual dysfunction, which was not often assessed in previous studies [ ]. In our study, more than 50% of patients with colorectal (69/127, 54.3%), gynecologic (63/112, 56.3%), breast (252/411, 61.3%), and lung cancers (121/234, 51.7%) experienced decreased libido, whereas 67/112 (59.8%) patients with gynecologic cancer and lymphoma/myeloma reported pain during sexual intercourse. However, these sexual dysfunctions are often overlooked in evaluating patients with cancers [ ]. The causes of sexual dysfunction are psychological distress and endocrine dysfunction caused by the cancer itself or side effects of anticancer treatments such as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy. For example, among patients with colorectal cancer, the rates of sexual dysfunction can be even higher given the physiological changes that can result from surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy [ ]. Similarly, surgery for lung cancer may adversely affect the psychogenic status and sexual function in patients with lung cancer due to its invasive nature [ ]. As cancer treatments and the emotional suffering from a cancer diagnosis can affect all aspects of sexuality [ ], sexuality should be a routine assessment, and communication should begin early on [ ].
The PRO-CTCAE includes 6 symptoms of cutaneous toxicity, which were frequently reported by our patients with lymphoma/myeloma, colorectal, gynecologic, gastric, breast, and lung cancers. Although cutaneous toxicities are the common side effects reported by patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy , they are often considered minor complaints compared with other side effects such as nausea or vomiting [ ]. However, cutaneous toxicity is strongly associated with psychological well-being and HRQoL. Most patients with cancer reported that the impact of chemotherapy on skin irritation and dry skin was worse than they had anticipated [ ]. More than two-thirds of patients that developed cutaneous side effects due to chemotherapy were significantly distressed by their altered appearance [ ]. It disturbs their daily activities and personal relationships and negatively impacts their HRQoL [ ]. Considering the burden of cutaneous symptoms on patients’ daily activities and HRQoL [ ], a multidisciplinary cancer care team, including dermatologists, oncologists, and nurses, should perform regular surveillance and appropriate interventions. Furthermore, cutaneous toxicity needs to be monitored more actively in patients with targeted agents, as dermatological toxicities are among the most common complications of targeted agents [ ].
Regarding the impact of symptoms burden on HRQoL, most symptoms were associated with lower HRQoL. In particular, memory, mood, fatigue, erection, body odor, concentration, and dizziness were associated with clinically noticeable declines in HRQoL. As these symptoms were associated with daily life, they might have a greater impact on HRQoL due to their burden. In particular, fatigue was reported as one of the most common side effects of cancer that was associated with poor HRQoL, which is similar to the finding reported in a previous study . Fatigue negatively impacts work, social relationships, mood, and daily activities and causes significant impairment in the overall HRQoL during and after treatment [ ]. Regarding mood, all patients with cancer had a certain level of anxiety, which could be related to the fear of treatment or fear of cancer recurrence. Considering that anxiety as a symptom is dynamic and can change over time in response to cancer-related events [ ], surveillance and treatment planning should incorporate factors contributing to anxiety and patient preference for psychiatric care [ ]. Pain is also a frequent, nonsite-specific symptom in all patients. A more active approach may be necessary to manage pain, as it could affect many other symptoms. Patients experienced loss of confidence and restriction in physical and social activities due to chronic dizziness [ ]. The burden of shortness of breath might be further compounded by fatigue, anxiety, and depression, resulting in functional limitations and compromised HRQoL [ ]. Patients with cancer reported more distress when they experienced a symptom they did not anticipate [ ]. Therefore, it is important to provide pretreatment information, counseling, and management resources concerning possible treatment-related side effects in these patients.
There are several limitations to our study. First, the reporting of the symptom scores was voluntary. Thus, the receipt of symptom screening may itself bias the estimates of symptom burden because the routine collection of PROs is associated with improved clinical outcomes and increased patient satisfaction. In addition, patient factors, including male sex and advanced age, were associated with lower rates of PRO-CTCAE reporting, which could reflect differential rates of participation among patient subgroups. Second, as symptom assessments are only recorded at outpatient visits, we did not capture the symptoms of patients who are admitted to the hospital or hospice, or who are otherwise too unwell to visit clinics and may probably be the most symptomatic. In addition, because of the heterogeneity in our cohort, we did not assess the influence of treatment modalities, which will differ substantially among stages, on symptom burden. Finally, although we compared symptom burden based on disease site groups, we did not describe the symptoms of unique cancers, which may mask heterogeneity in the symptom profiles of distinct cancers within larger categories, such as lymphoma/myeloma, colorectal, head and neck/esophageal, prostate/bladder, and gynecologic cancers. Despite these limitations, this study provides guidance on symptoms that should be asked about to patients in the real-world clinical setting. This study also illustrated the feasibility of linking routinely collected PROs to large population-based health care databases.
In conclusion, the frequency and severity of symptoms differed according to the type of cancer, and the symptoms were associated with poor HRQoL. Recently, there has been an emphasis on the appropriate assessment of PRO symptoms during cancer treatment [, ]. Considering that patients would have various symptoms at different periods, and that symptoms could affect not only disease but also HRQoL, it is necessary to take a holistic approach when implementing a symptom monitoring and management strategy. The results of this study would help physicians to improve their understanding of the variations in cancer treatment–related symptoms and to use proper symptoms list by types of cancer in routine care for developing management plans and guidelines.
This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2020R1I1A2074210), the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number 1520240), a grant (number 19182MFDS426) from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in 2019, and Future Medicine 20 × 30 Project of the Samsung Medical Center (SMX1210831).
The data sets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author (JC) on reasonable request.
DK and JC were involved in the study design. ML, SYK, YJC, SS, and YJK were involved in data collection. DK, SK, and HK were involved in data acquisition and management. DK, SK, and HK were involved in data analysis. All authors were involved in results interpretation and manuscript writing. JC made the decision to submit this manuscript for publication.
Conflicts of Interest
Symptom frequency by composite grades of PRO-CTCAE items. PRO-CTCAE: Patient-Reported Outcome Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.DOCX File , 33 KB
Difference (95% CI) of cancer-specific symptoms by types of cancer compared with other cancers.DOCX File , 32 KB
Association between symptoms and health-related quality of life in different types of cancer.DOCX File , 44 KB
- Shi Q, Smith TG, Michonski JD, Stein KD, Kaw C, Cleeland CS. Symptom burden in cancer survivors 1 year after diagnosis: a report from the American Cancer Society's Studies of Cancer Survivors. Cancer 2011 Jun 15;117(12):2779-2790 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Deshields TL, Potter P, Olsen S, Liu J. The persistence of symptom burden: symptom experience and quality of life of cancer patients across one year. Support Care Cancer 2013 Dec 3;22(4):1089-1096. [CrossRef]
- National Chemotherapy Advisory Group. Chemotherapy Services in England: Ensuring Quality and Safety. England, UK: NHS National Cancer Action Team; 2009.
- Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes and the evolution of adverse event reporting in oncology. JCO 2007 Nov 10;25(32):5121-5127. [CrossRef]
- Aboueid S, Meyer S, Wallace JR, Mahajan S, Chaurasia A. Young adults' perspectives on the use of symptom checkers for self-triage and self-diagnosis: qualitative study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2021 Jan 06;7(1):e22637 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Basch E, Wood WA, Schrag D, Sima CS, Shaw M, Rogak LJ, et al. Feasibility and clinical impact of sharing patient-reported symptom toxicities and performance status with clinical investigators during a phase 2 cancer treatment trial. Clin Trials 2016 Jun;13(3):331-337 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kim D, Chang H. Key functional characteristics in designing and operating health information websites for user satisfaction: an application of the extended technology acceptance model. Int J Med Inform 2007 Dec;76(11-12):790-800. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst 2014 Sep;106(9) [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kluetz PG, Slagle A, Papadopoulos EJ, Johnson LL, Donoghue M, Kwitkowski VE, et al. Focusing on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms. Clin Cancer Res 2016 Apr 01;22(7):1553-1558 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Montgomery N, Howell D, Ismail Z, Bartlett SJ, Brundage M, Bryant-Lukosius D, et al. Selecting, implementing and evaluating patient-reported outcome measures for routine clinical use in cancer: the Cancer Care Ontario approach. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2020 Nov 26;4(1). [CrossRef]
- Park S, Choi SH, Song Y, Kwon J. Comparison of online patient reviews and national pharmacovigilance data for tramadol-related adverse events: comparative observational study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2022 Jan 04;8(1):e33311 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Geerse O, Wynia K, Kruijer M, Schotsman M, Hiltermann T, Berendsen A. Health-related problems in adult cancer survivors: development and validation of the Cancer Survivor Core Set. Support Care Cancer 2016 Oct 14;25(2):567-574. [CrossRef]
- Ramsey I, Corsini N, Hutchinson AD, Marker J, Eckert M. A core set of patient-reported outcomes for population-based cancer survivorship research: a consensus study. J Cancer Surviv 2020 Aug 31;15(2):201-212. [CrossRef]
- Zhang C, Zhang C, Wang Q, Li Z, Lin J, Wang H. Differences in stage of cancer at diagnosis, treatment, and survival by race and ethnicity among leading cancer types. JAMA Netw Open 2020 Apr 08;3(4):e202950. [CrossRef]
- Cho J, Yoon J, Kim Y, Oh D, Kim SJ, Ahn J, et al. Linguistic Validation of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in Korean. JGO 2019 Dec(5):1-10. [CrossRef]
- Yoon J, Sim SH, Kang D, Han G, Kim Y, Ahn J, et al. Reliability and Validity of the Korean Language Version of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. J Pain Symptom Manage 2020 May;59(5):1082-1088.e6. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Dueck AC, Basch E, Cella D, Reilly CM, et al. Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014 Jul 08;106(7):dju129-dju129 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Yun Y, Park Y, Lee E, Bang S, Heo D, Park S, et al. Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 2004 May;13(4):863-868. [CrossRef]
- Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual, 3rd Edition. Brussels, Belgium: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
- Basch E, Becker C, Rogak LJ, Schrag D, Reeve BB, Spears P, et al. Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Clin Trials 2021 Feb 01;18(1):104-114 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R. Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making 2005 Jun 10;25(3):250-261. [CrossRef]
- Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, Fayers PM, Brown JM. Quality, interpretation and presentation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 data in randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cancer 2008 Sep;44(13):1793-1798. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Abernethy A, Wheeler J, Zafar S. Management of gastrointestinal symptoms in advanced cancer patients: the rapid learning cancer clinic model. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2010 Mar;4(1):36-45 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sougiannis AT, VanderVeen BN, Davis JM, Fan D, Murphy EA. Understanding chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis and strategies to improve gut resilience. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2021 May 01;320(5):G712-G719 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Jordan K, Jahn F, Aapro M. Recent developments in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a comprehensive review. Ann Oncol 2015 Jun;26(6):1081-1090 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Jordan K, Gralla R, Jahn F, Molassiotis A. International antiemetic guidelines on chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): content and implementation in daily routine practice. Eur J Pharmacol 2014 Jan 05;722:197-202. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Koo MM, Swann R, McPhail S, Abel GA, Elliss-Brookes L, Rubin GP, et al. Presenting symptoms of cancer and stage at diagnosis: evidence from a cross-sectional, population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2020 Jan;21(1):73-79 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hanahan D. Hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions. Cancer Discovery 2022 Dec 1;12(1):31-46. [CrossRef]
- Dueck AC, Scher HI, Bennett AV, Mazza GL, Thanarajasingam G, Schwab G, et al. Assessment of adverse events from the patient perspective in a phase 3 metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2020 Feb 01;6(2):e193332 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Furlow B. Sexual dysfunction in patients with lung disease. Lancet Respir Med 2014 Jun;2(6):439. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Averyt JC, Nishimoto PW. Addressing sexual dysfunction in colorectal cancer survivorship care. J Gastrointest Oncol 2014 Oct;5(5):388-394 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Hung M, Chen Y, Huang T, Ho D, Lee C, Chen P, et al. Erectile dysfunction after surgical treatment of lung cancer: real-world evidence. CLEP 2020 Sep;Volume 12:977-987. [CrossRef]
- Williams AC, Reckamp K, Freeman B, Sidhu R, Grant M. Sexuality, lung cancer, and the older adult: an unlikely trio? J Adv Pract Oncol 2013 Sep 1;4(5):331-340 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Yi J, Syrjala K. Sexuality after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cancer J 2009;15(1):57-64 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Heidary N, Naik H, Burgin S. Chemotherapeutic agents and the skin: an update. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008 Apr;58(4):545-570. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ra H, Shin S, Kim J, Lim H, Cho B, Roh M. The impact of dermatological toxicities of anti-cancer therapy on the dermatological quality of life of cancer patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2013 Jan 13;27(1):e53-e59. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gandhi M, Oishi K, Zubal B, Lacouture ME. Unanticipated toxicities from anticancer therapies: survivors' perspectives. Support Care Cancer 2010 Nov 3;18(11):1461-1468. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Zabora J, BrintzenhofeSzoc K, Curbow B, Hooker C, Piantadosi S. The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psychooncology 2001 Jan;10(1):19-28. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Haley AC, Calahan C, Gandhi M, West DP, Rademaker A, Lacouture ME. Skin care management in cancer patients: an evaluation of quality of life and tolerability. Support Care Cancer 2011 Apr 25;19(4):545-554 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Pérez-Soler R. Can rash associated with HER1/EGFR inhibition be used as a marker of treatment outcome? Oncology (Williston Park) 2003 Nov;17(11 Suppl 12):23-28 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
- Huynh Dagher S, Blom A, Chabanol H, Funck-Brentano E. Cutaneous toxicities from targeted therapies used in oncology: literature review of clinical presentation and management. Int J Womens Dermatol 2021 Dec 28;7(5Part A):615-624 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Fabi A, Bhargava R, Fatigoni S, Guglielmo M, Horneber M, Roila F, ESMO Guidelines Committee. Cancer-related fatigue: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Ann Oncol 2020 Jun;31(6):713-723 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Traeger L, Greer JA, Fernandez-Robles C, Temel JS, Pirl WF. Evidence-based treatment of anxiety in patients with cancer. JCO 2012 Apr 10;30(11):1197-1205. [CrossRef]
- Lindell E, Kollén L, Johansson M, Karlsson T, Rydén L, Fässberg MM, et al. Dizziness and health-related quality of life among older adults in an urban population: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2021 Oct 02;19(1):231 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Reddy SK, Parsons HA, Elsayem A, Palmer JL, Bruera E. Characteristics and correlates of dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer. J Palliat Med 2009 Jan;12(1):29-36. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, et al. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
|AE: adverse event|
|ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group|
|EORTC QLQ-C30: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30|
|HRQoL: health-related quality of life|
|NCC: National Cancer Center|
|PRO-CTCAE: Patient-Reported Outcome Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events|
|PS: performance status|
|SMC: Samsung Medical Center|
Edited by A Mavragani, T Sanchez; submitted 07.11.22; peer-reviewed by M Schoen, J Drott; comments to author 06.01.23; revised version received 10.01.23; accepted 31.01.23; published 08.03.23Copyright
©Danbee Kang, Sooyeon Kim, Hyunsoo Kim, Mangyeong Lee, Sun-Young Kong, Yoon Jung Chang, Sung Hoon Sim, Yeon-Joo Kim, Juhee Cho. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 08.03.2023.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://publichealth.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.