Premium
Difference in toxicity reporting between patients and clinicians during systemic chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma
Author(s) -
Fukushi Ken,
Narita Takuma,
Hatakeyama Shingo,
Yamamoto Hayato,
Tobisawa Yuki,
Yoneyama Tohru,
Yoneyama Takahiro,
Hashimoto Yasuhiro,
Koie Takuya,
Ohyama Chikara
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
international journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.172
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1442-2042
pISSN - 0919-8172
DOI - 10.1111/iju.13318
Subject(s) - medicine , common terminology criteria for adverse events , gemcitabine , nausea , carboplatin , quality of life (healthcare) , constipation , adverse effect , toxicity , chemotherapy , cancer , oncology , cisplatin , nursing
Objectives To compare toxicity reporting between patients and clinicians in the case of systemic chemotherapy for urothelial carcinoma. Methods Between June 2013 and March 2016, 100 urothelial carcinoma patients received two courses of chemotherapy of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, and they were prospectively enrolled in the present study. During chemotherapy, patients answered European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality‐of‐Life Questionnaire C30 quality‐of‐life questionnaires, including four toxicity‐related symptoms (appetite loss, nausea, constipation and diarrhea). Clinicians evaluated adverse events using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Differences of toxicity reporting were compared between patients and clinicians. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to investigate potential factors for underreporting by clinicians. Results Toxicity underreporting was most frequently for diarrhea (44%), followed by appetite loss (39%), constipation (33%) and nausea (22%). In total, toxicity underreporting was observed in 72% of patients. Background‐adjusted logistic regression analyses showed pretreatment quality‐of‐life items of global, symptomatic scores to be predictors for toxicity underreporting by clinicians. The limitations of the present study included its retrospective nature and small sample size. Conclusions Toxicity underreporting by clinicians is frequent in urothelial carcinoma patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. Pretreatment quality‐of‐life evaluation is essential not only for quality‐of‐life evaluation, but also to identify potential individuals at risk for toxicity underreporting.