IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0210646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of the Muenster, SIOP Boston, Brock, Chang and CTCAEv4.03 ototoxicity grading scales applied to 3,799 audiograms of childhood cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy

Author

Listed:
  • E Clemens
  • B Brooks
  • A C H de Vries
  • M van Grotel
  • M M van den Heuvel-Eibrink
  • B Carleton

Abstract

Childhood cancer patients treated with platinums often develop hearing loss and the degree is classified according to different scales globally. Our objective was to compare concordance between five well-known ototoxicity scales used for childhood cancer patients. Audiometric test results (n = 654) were evaluated longitudinally and graded according Brock, Chang, International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) Boston, Muenster scales and the U.S. National Cancer Institute Common Technology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03. Adverse effects of grade 2, 3 and 4 are considered to reflect a degree of hearing loss sufficient to interfere with day-to-day communication (> = Chang grade 2a; > = Muenster grade 2b). We term this “deleterious hearing loss”. A total number of 3,799 audiograms were evaluated. The prevalence of deleterious hearing loss according to the last available audiogram of each patient was 59.3% (388/654) according to Muenster, 48.2% (315/653) according to SIOP, 40.5% (265/652) according to Brock, 40.3% (263/652) according to Chang, and 57.5% (300/522) according to CTCAEv4.03. Overall concordance between the scales ranged from ĸ = 0.636 (Muenster vs. Chang) to ĸ = 0.975 (Brock vs. Chang). Muenster detected hearing loss the earliest in time, followed by Chang, SIOP and Brock. Generally good concordance between the scales was observed but there is still diversity in definitions of functional outcomes, such as differences in distribution levels of severity of hearing loss, and additional intermediate scales taking into account losses

Suggested Citation

  • E Clemens & B Brooks & A C H de Vries & M van Grotel & M M van den Heuvel-Eibrink & B Carleton, 2019. "A comparison of the Muenster, SIOP Boston, Brock, Chang and CTCAEv4.03 ototoxicity grading scales applied to 3,799 audiograms of childhood cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210646
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210646
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210646&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0210646?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.