Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 25, Issue 11, pp 3437–3446 | Cite as

Electronic versus paper-pencil methods for assessing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

  • Robert KnoerlEmail author
  • Evan Gray
  • Carrie Stricker
  • Sandra A. Mitchell
  • Kelsey Kippe
  • Gloria Smith
  • William N. Dudley
  • Ellen M. Lavoie Smith
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to examine and compare with the validated, paper/pencil European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Scale (QLQ-CIPN20), the psychometric properties of three electronically administered patient reported outcome (PRO) measures of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): (1) the two neuropathy items from the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), (2) the QLQ-CIPN20, and (3) the 0–10 Neuropathy Screening Question (NSQ).

Methods

We employed a descriptive, cross-sectional design and recruited 25 women with breast cancer who were receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy at an academic hospital. Participants completed the paper/pencil QLQ-CIPN20 and electronic versions of the QLQ-CIPN20, PRO-CTCAE, and NSQ. Internal consistency reliability, intraclass correlation, and concurrent and discriminant validity analyses were conducted.

Results

The alpha coefficients for the electronic QLQ-CIPN20 sensory and motor subscales were 0.76 and 0.75. Comparison of the electronic and paper/pencil QLQ-CIPN20 subscales supported mode equivalence (intraclass correlation range >0.91). Participants who reported the presence of numbness/tingling via the single-item NSQ reported higher mean QLQ-CIPN20 sensory subscale scores (p < 0.001). PRO-CTCAE neuropathy severity and interference items correlated well with the QLQ-CIPN20 electronic and paper/pencil sensory (r = 0.76; r = 0.70) and motor (r = 0.55; r = 0.62) subscales, and with the NSQ (r = 0.72; r = 0.44).

Conclusion

These data support the validity of the electronically administered PRO-CTCAE neuropathy items, NSQ, and QLQ-CIPN20 for neuropathy screening in clinical practice. The electronic and paper/pencil versions of the QLQ-CIPN can be used interchangeably based on evidence of mode equivalence.

Keywords

Psychometrics Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy Peripheral nervous system disease/chemically induced Patient-reported outcomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Carevive Systems, Inc. for allowing us to test these instruments within their computerized care planning system. In addition, we would like to acknowledge Jill Hayden, RN, and Shraddha Pardesi, MS, BPharm for their assistance with patient accrual; James P. Kelly, IV, BS, Deborah Lee, MSN, FNP, ACNP-BC, and Grace Kanzawa, BSN, RN for their assistance with data collection; Megan Williams, PA-C, Anne Clotfelter, MS, NP-C, Tamara Ghormley, MS, NP-C, and Joan Armstrong, MS, NP-C for participating in the study as the clinical providers; Kelly Scheu, MS, NP-C, for her assistance with facilitating use of the technology within the clinical practice setting; and Celia Bridges, BA, BSN for her assistance with editing the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Source of funding

Dr. Carrie Stricker is the CCO of Carevive® Systems Inc., which provided the Care Planning System used in this study without cost. Dr. Stricker reports grants from Genentech, Inc., personal fees from Carevive Systems, Inc., during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Carevive Systems, Inc. and other from Carevive Systems, Inc., outside the submitted work; . Mr. Evan Gray reports personal fees from Centerpoint Human Services, personal fees from Cardinal Innovations Healthcare, personal fees from Piedmont Research Strategies, Inc., outside the submitted work. Dr. Ellen Smith reports receiving a grant from Genentech Inc., during the conduct of the study; personal fees from American Society of Clinical Oncology, grants from National Institute of Health, outside the submitted work. Dr. William Dudley reports personal fees from Piedmont Research Strategies, Inc., during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Piedmont Research Strategies, Inc., outside the submitted work.

This study was conducted with oversight from the University of Michigan IRBMED: HUM00084475 Written informed consent was obtained from all enrolled participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Argyriou AA, Bruna J, Marmiroli P, Cavaletti G (2012) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN): an update. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 82(1):51–77. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.04.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cavaletti G, Cornblath DR, Merkies IS et al (2013) The chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy outcome measures standardization study: from consensus to the first validity and reliability findings. Ann Oncol 24(2):454–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hershman DL, Lacchetti C, Dworkin RH et al (2014) Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 32(18):1941–1967. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0914 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kautio AL, Haanpaa M, Kautiainen H, Kalso E, Saarto T (2011) Burden of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy—a cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer 19(12):1991–1996. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-1043-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mols F, Beijers T, Vreugdenhil G, van de Poll-Franse L (2014) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and its association with quality of life: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 22(8):2261–2269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seretny M, Currie GL, Sena ES et al (2014) Incidence, prevalence, and predictors of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain 155(12):2461–2470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saif MW, Reardon J (2005) Management of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy. Ther Clin Risk Manag 1(4):249–258PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith EML, Bridges CM, Kanzawa G et al (2014) Cancer treatment-related neuropathic pain syndromes—epidemiology and treatment: an update. Curr Pain Headache Rep 18(11):459. doi: 10.1007/s11916-014-0459-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Speck RM, Sammel MD, Farrar JT et al (2013) Impact of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy on treatment delivery in nonmetastatic breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 9(5):e234–e240. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000863 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stubblefield MD, Burstein HJ, Burton AW et al (2009) NCCN task force report: management of neuropathy in cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7(Suppl 5):S1-NaN-8Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith EM, Beck SL, Cohen J (2008) The total neuropathy score: a tool for measuring chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Oncol Nurs Forum 35(1):96–102. doi: 10.1188/08.ONF.96-102 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith EML, Bakitas MA, Homel P et al (2009) Using quality improvement methodology to improve neuropathic pain screening and assessment in patients with cancer. J Cancer Educ 24(2):135–140. doi: 10.1080/08858190902854715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bakitas MA Background noise: the experience of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Nurs Res 56(5):323–331. doi: 10.1097/01.NNR.0000289503.22414.79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Binner M, Ross D, Browner I (2011) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: assessment of oncology nurses’ knowledge and practice. Oncol Nurs Forum 38(4):448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith EM (2013) Current methods for the assessment and management of taxane-related neuropathy. Clin J Oncol Nurs 17(Suppl):22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Griffith KA, Merkies IS, Hill EE, Cornblath DR (2010) Measures of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review of psychometric properties. J Peripher Nerv Syst 15(4):314–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8027.2010.00292.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cavaletti G, Frigeni B, Lanzani F et al (2010) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity assessment: a critical revision of the currently available tools. Eur J Cancer 46(3):479–494. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.12.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Postma TJ, Aaronson NK, Heimans JJ et al (2005) The development of an EORTC quality of life questionnaire to assess chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: the QLQ-CIPN20. Eur J Cancer 41(8):1135–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith EML, Barton DL, Qin R, Steen PD, Aaronson NK, Loprinzi CL (2013) Assessing patient-reported peripheral neuropathy: the reliability and validity of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire. Qual Life Res 22(10):2787–2799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Cancer Institute (2010) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.3 (CTCAE)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Basch E, Jia X, Heller G et al (2009) Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(23):1624–1632. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp386 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Postma TJ, Heimans JJ, Muller MJ, Ossenkoppele GJ, Vermorken JB, Aaronson NK (1998) Pitfalls in grading severity of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Ann Oncol 9(7):739–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alberti P, Rossi E, Cornblath DR et al (2014) Physician-assessed and patient-reported outcome measures in chemotherapy-induced sensory peripheral neurotoxicity: two sides of the same coin. Ann Oncol 25(1):257–264. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Atkinson TM, Ryan SJ, Bennett AV et al (2016) The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3297-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Atkinson TM, Li Y, Coffey CW et al (2012) Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians. Qual Life Res 21(7):1159–1164. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0031-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R et al (2014) What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 32(14):1480–1501. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA et al (2015) Validity and reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncol 1(8):1051–1059. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2639 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, et al (2014) Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst 106(9). doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hay JL, Atkinson TM, Reeve BB et al (2014) Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Qual Life Res 23(1):257–269. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0470-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al (2001) EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. 3rd ed. Brussels; file:///Users/rjknoerl1/Downloads/EORTC_QLQ_C30 _scoring_Manual (1).pdfGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Knoerl R, Dudley WN, Smith G, Bridges C, Kanzawa-Lee G, Lavoie Smith EM (2016) Pilot testing a web-based system for the assessment and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. CIN Comput Informatics Nurs 1. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000320 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eisinga R, Grotenhuis M, Pelzer B (2013) The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int J Public Health 58(4):637–642. doi: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ferguson CJ An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. doi: 10.1037/a0015808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nunnally J, Berstein I (1994) Psychometric methods, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Edge SB (2010) American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Springer. http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387884424. Accessed 12 Apr 2017
  38. 38.
    Pace A, Nisticò C, Cuppone F et al (2007) Peripheral neurotoxicity of weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy: a schedule or a dose issue? Clin Breast Cancer 7(7):550–554. doi: 10.3816/CBC.2007.n.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scripture CD, Figg WD, Sparreboom A (2006) Peripheral neuropathy induced by paclitaxel: recent insights and future perspectives. Curr Neuropharmacol 4(2):165–172 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615126. Accessed June 6, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ventzel L, Jensen AB, Jensen AR, Jensen TS, Finnerup NB (2016) Chemotherapy-induced pain and neuropathy: a prospective study in patients treated with adjuvant oxaliplatin or docetaxel. Pain 157(3):560–568. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000404 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eckhoff L, Knoop AS, Jensen M-B, Ejlertsen B, Ewertz M (2013) Risk of docetaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy among 1,725 Danish patients with early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 142(1):109–118. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2728-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rouquette A, Falissard B (2011) Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 20(4):235–249. doi: 10.1002/mpr.352 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Knoerl R, Dudley W, Smith G, Bridges C, Kanzawa G, Smith EML Pilot testing a web-based system for the assessment and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Comput Informatics NursGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Michigan School of NursingAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Health and Human Sciences, Department of Health EducationUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA
  3. 3.Carevive Systems Inc.PhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.National Cancer Institute, Outcomes Research BranchRockvilleUSA
  5. 5.Northwestern Memorial HospitalChicagoUSA
  6. 6.University of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations