The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and not necessarily those of the JSM sponsors, their officers, or their staff.
Online Program Home
Abstract Details
Activity Number:
|
663
|
Type:
|
Contributed
|
Date/Time:
|
Thursday, August 2, 2012 : 10:30 AM to 12:20 PM
|
Sponsor:
|
Biopharmaceutical Section
|
Abstract - #306712 |
Title:
|
Multiple Testing in Patient-Reported Symptom Data with Application to the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)
|
Author(s):
|
Amylou C Dueck*+ and Sandra A. Mitchell and Tito R Mendoza and Pamela J Atherton and Daniel V Satele and Antonia V Bennett and Yuelin Li and Thomas M Atkinson and Bryce B Reeve and Steven B Clauser and Jeff A Sloan and Ethan Basch
|
Companies:
|
Mayo Clinic and National Cancer Institute and MD Anderson Cancer Center and Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and National Cancer Institute and Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
|
Address:
|
6945 E. Osborn Rd., Scottsdale, AZ, 85251, United States
|
Keywords:
|
patient-reported outcomes ;
symptoms ;
multiple testing ;
proc multtest ;
cancer clinical trials ;
psychometrics
|
Abstract:
|
Symptom adverse events in cancer clinical trials are currently reported by clinicians using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). NCI contracted to create a patient-reported outcomes companion tool (PRO-CTCAE) consisting of 124 items reflecting 78 symptoms to incorporate the patient perspective into AE reporting. The PRO-CTCAE validation study (N=869 patients receiving treatment for a range of cancer types) revealed many challenges in the analysis/interpretation of multi-symptom patient-reported outcomes in cancer trials. One challenge is multiple testing as when comparing scores for multiple symptoms between arms in a randomized trial. In this paper, we describe common methods for handling multiplicity including alpha adjustment methods (Bonferroni, Holm-Bonferroni step-down, Hochberg step-up), resampling methods and methods for large-scale testing (false discovery rate). Depending on the method, the number of significant results when comparing 124 PRO-CTCAE items between patients with low vs high performance status ranged from 32 to 55. Interpretation of results under each method are compared and contrasted.
|
The address information is for the authors that have a + after their name.
Authors who are presenting talks have a * after their name.
Back to the full JSM 2012 program
|
2012 JSM Online Program Home
For information, contact jsm@amstat.org or phone (888) 231-3473.
If you have questions about the Continuing Education program, please contact the Education Department.