Title |
Is there more than one proctitis syndrome? A revisitation using data from the TROG 96.01 trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
Radiotherapy & Oncology, October 2008
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.09.019 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anne Capp, Mario Inostroza-Ponta, Dana Bill, Pablo Moscato, Chi Lai, David Christie, David Lamb, Sandra Turner, David Joseph, John Matthews, Chris Atkinson, John North, Michael Poulsen, Nigel A. Spry, Keen-Hun Tai, Chris Wynne, Gillian Duchesne, Allison Steigler, James W. Denham |
Abstract |
We sought to categorize longitudinal radiation-induced rectal toxicity data obtained from men participating in a randomised controlled trial for locally advanced prostate cancer. Data from self-assessed questionnaires of rectal symptoms and clinician recorded remedial interventions were collected during the TROG 96.01 trial. In this trial, volunteers were randomised to radiation with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation. Characterization of longitudinal variations in symptom intensity was achieved using prevalence data. An integrated visualization and clustering approach based on memetic algorithms was used to define the compositions of symptom clusters occurring before, during and after radiation. The utility of the CTC grading system as a means of identifying specific injury profiles was evaluated using concordance analyses. Seven well-defined clusters of rectal symptoms were present prior to treatment, 25 were seen immediately following radiation and 7 at years 1, 2 and 3 following radiation. CTC grading did not concord with the degree of rectal 'distress' and 'problems' at all time points. Concordance was not improved by adding urgency to the CTC scale. The CTC scale has serious shortcomings. A powerful new technique for non-hierarchical clustering may contribute to the categorization of rectal toxicity data for genomic profiling studies and detailed patho-physiological studies. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 57 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
Unspecified | 7 | 12% |
Researcher | 6 | 10% |
Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
Other | 4 | 7% |
Other | 17 | 29% |
Unknown | 11 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 38% |
Unspecified | 7 | 12% |
Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
Other | 7 | 12% |
Unknown | 14 | 24% |