Breast (Apr 2020)

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinician-reported versus patient-reported outcomes of radiation dermatitis

  • Emily Lam,
  • Caitlin Yee,
  • Gina Wong,
  • Marko Popovic,
  • Leah Drost,
  • Kucy Pon,
  • Danny Vesprini,
  • Henry Lam,
  • Saleh Aljabri,
  • Hany Soliman,
  • Carlo DeAngelis,
  • Edward Chow

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 50
pp. 125 – 134

Abstract

Read online

Radiation dermatitis is a common adverse effect of radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer patients. Although radiation dermatitis is reported by either the clinician or the patient, previous studies have shown disagreement between clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review evaluated the extent of discordance between CROs and PROs for radiation dermatitis. Studies reporting both clinician and patient-reported outcomes for external beam RT were eligible. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, while 8 of these studies were eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis of acute and late skin toxicities. We found an overall agreement between CROs and PROs of acute skin colour change, fibrosis and/or retraction, and moist desquamation (p > 0.005). Reporting of late breast pain, breast edema, skin colour change, telangiectasia, fibrosis and/or retraction and induration/fibrosis alone (p > 0.005) were also in agreement between clinicians and patients. Our meta-analysis revealed a greater reporting of acute breast pain by patients (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.87–0.92, p < 0.001), greater reporting of acute breast edema by physicians (RR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.65–1.97, p < 0.001) and a greater reporting of late breast shrinkage by patients (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.86, p = 0.005). However, our review was limited by the discrepancies between PRO and CRO measurement tools as well as the absence of standard time points for evaluation of radiation dermatitis. Given potential discrepancies between CROs and PROs, both measures should be reported in future studies. Ultimately, we advocate for the development of a single tool to assess symptoms from both perspectives.

Keywords