Next Article in Journal
Insulin-Regulated Aminopeptidase in Women with Breast Cancer: A Role beyond the Regulation of Oxytocin and Vasopressin
Next Article in Special Issue
Living with Metastatic Cancer: A Roadmap for Future Research
Previous Article in Journal
Poziotinib Inhibits the Efflux Activity of the ABCB1 and ABCG2 Transporters and the Expression of the ABCG2 Transporter Protein in Multidrug Resistant Colon Cancer Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Osteoporosis: A Long-Term and Late-Effect of Breast Cancer Treatments
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Adverse Event Burden Score—A Versatile Summary Measure for Cancer Clinical Trials

Cancers 2020, 12(11), 3251; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12113251
by Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher 1,*, Shauna Hillman 1, Elizabeth Storrick 1, Michelle R. Mahoney 2, Peter F. Thall 3, Aminah Jatoi 4 and Sumithra J. Mandrekar 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Cancers 2020, 12(11), 3251; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12113251
Submission received: 24 September 2020 / Revised: 22 October 2020 / Accepted: 27 October 2020 / Published: 4 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Symptoms and Side Effects in Cancer Survivors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on ,”Adverse Event Burden Score – a Versatile Summary 3 Measure for Cancer Clinical Trials”

Authors defined indicators for each combination of k and g and a subjective weights to define burden score for cancer patients. Clearly, they tried to quantify and express pain and burden numerically, however the advantages of their suggested score over existing ones is not clear. The problem is that their score is subjective and can be manipulated by the investigators by varying the weights. Existing burden score like ESAS are standard and investigators can compare their samples and findings with others. This suggested adverse event burden score is not standardized and the findings of two different studies cannot be compared. Authors did not compare their burden score with the existing one. If there is any advantages or disadvantages using their burden score, it hasn’t been explored.  The Appendix can be removed.   

Author Response

Reviewer #1

Authors defined indicators for each combination of k and g and a subjective weights to define burden score for cancer patients. Clearly, they tried to quantify and express pain and burden numerically, however the advantages of their suggested score over existing ones is not clear. The problem is that their score is subjective and can be manipulated by the investigators by varying the weights. Existing burden score like ESAS are standard and investigators can compare their samples and findings with others. This suggested adverse event burden score is not standardized and the findings of two different studies cannot be compared. Authors did not compare their burden score with the existing one. If there is any advantages or disadvantages using their burden score, it hasn’t been explored.  The Appendix can be removed.   

Response: Thank you for your review. Our proposed method is flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of different settings, and, in indeed, we view this flexibility as a strength of this methodology. However, we recommend that the weight function should be clearly defined a priori and emphasize that the same weight function should be used when comparing across trials or when comparing to an anchor. We have added clarifications (lines 118-123, 329-333) that the simple weight function used in our examples works in most settings and that more complex weight functions, if preferable, should be based upon a consensus from clinicians, patients, and experts.

 As stated in the discussion, the advantages of the AE burden score include: i) it is a numerical summary which is more informative than the current standard of categorical summary of the maximum grade of the most common AEs (expounded in Subsection 2.2) and ii) AE burden score explicitly quantifies the overall AE severity, distills a sizable amount of data into a single score, and facilitates formal comparison between study arms. We agree that this approach needs to be clearly defined a priori to ensure its objectivity and its comparability across trials.

We believe that Appendix A is useful as the link between the proposed AE burden score and the current convention of reducing AE data to a categorical summary measure. As an appendix, it does not interfere with the flow of the main text and it provides further details for the interested readers. If the reviewer and editor feel strongly, we will remove Appendix A.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

This is a very good manuscript with fine goals and application values. 

The description of AE burden score in methods would be the most important part of this work.  In addition to the statements of each parameter and equation, a figure or list including all parameters and equations is suggested to help the readers understand their relation and interaction more clearly.

Author Response

Reviewer #2

This is a very good manuscript with fine goals and application values. 

The description of AE burden score in methods would be the most important part of this work.  In addition to the statements of each parameter and equation, a figure or list including all parameters and equations is suggested to help the readers understand their relation and interaction more clearly.

Response: We are grateful for your positive comments and thank you for your review. We appreciate your suggestion. We have now added a list of parameters and equations to the end of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments.

Back to TopTop