Danish Translation and Linguistic Validation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Context The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the basis for standardized clinician-based grading and reporting of adverse events in cancer clinical trials. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has developed the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) to incorporate patient self-reporting of symptomatic adverse events. Objectives The aim of the study was to translate and linguistically validate a Danish language version of PRO-CTCAE. Methods The U.S. English language PRO-CTCAE was translated into Danish using forward and backward procedures with reconciliation. The linguistic validity of the PRO-CTCAE Danish was examined in two successive rounds of semistructured cognitive interviews in a sample of 56 patients equally distributed by gender and cancer type (prostate, head and neck, lung, breast, gynecological, gastrointestinal, and hematological cancer), and who were currently undergoing cancer treatment. Results In the first round of linguistic validation (n = 42), the phrasing of five symptomatic toxicities was adjusted, and the refined phrasing was retested in a second round of interviews (n = 14). Agreement about phrasing that was both culturally acceptable and semantically comprehensible was achieved in the second round. Statements from participants describing the meaning of the PRO-CTCAE symptomatic toxicities support conceptual equivalence to the U.S. English language version. Conclusion Availability of the NCI PRO-CTCAE in languages beyond English will support international congruence in self-reporting of side effects of cancer treatment. A rigorous methodology was used to develop the Danish language version of PRO-CTCAE. Results provide preliminary support for the use of PRO-CTCAE in cancer clinical trials that include Danish speakers

Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the patient-reported outcomes version of common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients

Background: The aim was to examine the feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using a subset of items drawn from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a cancer treatment setting. Methods: Danish-speaking men with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer receiving treatment at the Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen between March 9, 2015 and June 8, 2015 were invited to participate (n = 63 eligible). Participants completed the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire on tablet computers using AmbuFlex software at each treatment visit in the outpatient clinic. In total, 22 symptomatic toxicities (41 PRO-CTCAE items), corresponding to the symptomatic adverse-events profile associated with the regimens commonly used for prostate cancer treatment (Docetaxel, Cabazitaxel, Abiraterone, Alpharadin), were selected. Participants’ PRO-CTCAE responses were presented graphically to their treating oncologists via an AmbuFlex dashboard, for real-time use to enhance the patient-clinician dialogue that occurs during the consultation prior to each treatment cycle. Technical and clinical barriers and acceptability were evaluated through semi-structured interviews with both patients and oncologists. Patients receiving active treatment at the end of the study period completed an evaluation questionnaire. Results: Fifty-four out of sixty-three (86%) eligible patients were enrolled. The PRO-CTCAE questionnaire was completed a total of 168 times by 54 participants (median number per patient was 3, range 1–5). Eight surveys were missed, resulting in a compliance rate of 97%. At the end of the study period, 35 patients (65%) were still receiving active treatment and completed the evaluation questionnaire. Patients reported that their PRO-CTCAE responses served as a communication tool. Oncologists stated that the availability of the PRO-CTCAE self-reports during the consultation improved patient-clinician communication about side effects. Conclusion: Electronic capture of symptomatic toxicities using PRO-CTCAE and the submission of self-reports to clinicians prior to consultation were feasible among metastatic prostate cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in an outpatient setting, and this procedure was acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Continued research, including a cluster-randomized trial, will evaluate the effects of submitting patients’ PRO-CTCAE results to clinicians prior to consultation on the quality of side-effects management and resultant clinical outcomes

Molecular modelling of the GIR1 branching ribozyme gives new insight into evolution of structurally related ribozymes

Twin-ribozyme introns contain a branching ribozyme (GIR1) followed by a homing endonuclease (HE) encoding sequence embedded in a peripheral domain of a group I splicing ribozyme (GIR2). GIR1 catalyses the formation of a lariat with 3 nt in the loop, which caps the HE mRNA. GIR1 is structurally related to group I ribozymes raising the question about how two closely related ribozymes can carry out very different reactions. Modelling of GIR1 based on new biochemical and mutational data shows an extended substrate domain containing a GoU pair distinct from the nucleophilic residue that dock onto a catalytic core showing a different topology from that of group I ribozymes. The differences include a core J8/7 region that has been reduced and is complemented by residues from the pre-lariat fold. These findings provide the basis for an evolutionary mechanism that accounts for the change from group I splicing ribozyme to the branching GIR1 architecture. Such an evolutionary mechanism can be applied to other large RNAs such as the ribonuclease P

Author Correction:Discovery of drug-omics associations in type 2 diabetes with generative deep-learning models

In the version of this article initially published, Cristina Leal Rodríguez (Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) was omitted from the author list. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article</p

Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review

Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles

20-Year Risks of Breast-Cancer Recurrence after Stopping Endocrine Therapy at 5 Years

The administration of endocrine therapy for 5 years substantially reduces recurrence rates during and after treatment in women with early-stage, estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. Extending such therapy beyond 5 years offers further protection but has additional side effects. Obtaining data on the absolute risk of subsequent distant recurrence if therapy stops at 5 years could help determine whether to extend treatment