ライフサイエンスコーパス: CTCAE

1 CTCAE clinical descriptors have been developed empirical

2 gy Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0 (CTCAE), and Brock Ototoxicity Grades (Brock).

3 ogy Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE 4.0).

4 Cycle 1 CTCAE skin toxicity was higher in the ULABTKA arm but no

5 We adapted CTCAE symptom items into patient language and uploaded t

6 RTOG/EORTC (n=17) and CTCAE (n=15) criteria were most commonly used for clinic

7 OP scale may be superior to ASHA, Brock, and CTCAE scales for classifying ototoxicity in pediatric pa

8 Although both the Chang and CTCAE ototoxicity grades were significantly related to a

9 Occurrences and CTCAE grades of the conditions for eligible non-SJLIFE p

10 G studies before and after OAC treatment and CTCAE 4.0-graded systemic adverse events.

11 nd May, 2005, a questionnaire with 11 common CTCAE symptoms was given to consecutive outpatients and

12 orded using the Common Terminology Criteria (CTCAE) v4.0.

13 Traditional reporting of toxicity data (CTCAE) has under-reported ototoxicity and minimized the

14 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v2.0).

15 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and ASHA criteria was inadequate.

16 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) are used as standard practice in trials of cancer

17 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the mandated instrument for tracking patient t

18 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the predominant system for describing the seve

19 mmon Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03 grading schema.

20 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visit

21 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).

22 mon terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE).

23 mon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] v3.0) was also collected at baseline and at the e

24 Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms

25 , grade 2 or greater sNT, as measured by NCI CTCAE (P = .038) and also by the oxaliplatin-specific sN

26 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE; version 3) criteria.

27 mplete cytoreduction and G3-5 morbidity (NCI-CTCAE v3).

28 Hematologic toxicity was evaluated using NCI-CTCAE and compared between groups at baseline and each m

29 Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1

30 All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected d

31 Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale chang

32 Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains.

33 52 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively.

34 A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day af

35 They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms

36 Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

37 nded include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically w

38 ins and 45 codes were not covered by NCI PRO-CTCAE including vaginal stenosis and bowel urgency.

39 ires, and 21 domains and 44 codes in NCI PRO-CTCAE.

40 8, and National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO-CTCAE were selected for further analysis.

41 der way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

42 aluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO

43 dity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients un

44 The CTCAE version 4.0 definitions of grade of severity for n

45 g both our proposed grading criteria and the CTCAE criteria.

46 version that used language adapted from the CTCAE for patient self-reporting.

47 emotherapy-related adverse effects using the CTCAE system is high in women undergoing adjuvant chemot

48 the Chang scale was more specific, with the CTCAE scale diverging from clinical recommendation at hi

49 ific and more sensitive than the traditional CTCAE criteria for identifying clinically significant ot

50 malignancy [n=1]; deaths not classified with CTCAE terms: disease progression [n=3], sudden death [n=

51 Compared with CTCAE, SIOP detected significantly more ototoxicity ( P

52 whereas the poorest agreement occurred with CTCAE.